Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

Vlad,

Whoosh!

What Jeremy has accepted is just that you believe a story to be true, not that it is true. If you want to try “You've obviously forgotten that God is omnipresent Jeremy” (Reply 49125) as your argument

We are doing reductio absurdum. We tentatively assume a statement e.g. "Vlad's version of god exists with the attributes that Vlad describes" and then we see if that leads to an absurdity, like "God that is everywhere can ascend to heaven, even though he was already in heaven before ascending and also still on Earth after the ascension".

It's proving quite easy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

We are doing reductio absurdum.

You may be, but I wouldn't be so sure about Vlad if I were you. He has form here for running out of logical road and then playing a blind faith assertion as if it were a trump card of some sort. The clue is to watch what he does when he's on the ropes, and then starts a reply with "but don't forget..." or similar.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We are doing reductio absurdum. We tentatively assume a statement e.g. "Vlad's version of god exists with the attributes that Vlad describes" and then we see if that leads to an absurdity, like "God that is everywhere can ascend to heaven, even though he was already in heaven before ascending and also still on Earth after the ascension".

It's proving quite easy.

Again a bad interpretation of Christianity. Jesus, as a former Christian should know is both man and God and it was his humanity that ascended into heaven. A former Christian. Should have known about God's omnipresence.

Hillside you take the New Atheist approach of Myers and Dawkins where Christianity is such twaddle any outsider view of it is acceptable and ignorance of it is no barrier to damningly judge it.

[Gordon]

Again a bad interpretation of Christianity. Jesus, as a former Christian should know is both man and God and it was his humanity that ascended into heaven. A former Christian. Should have known about God's omnipresence.

Hillside you take the New Atheist approach of Myers and Dawkins where Christianity is such twaddle any outsider view of it is acceptable and ignorance of it is no barrier to damningly judge it.

Well done Vlad - you gives us a Courtier's Reply at just after 4am: that's true dedication to a (failed) cause.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well done Vlad - you gives us a Courtier's Reply at just after 4am: that's true dedication to a (failed) cause.

If Jeremy misrepresents Christian claims  he is strawmanning. 2000 years....a failed cause...really?

[jeremyp]

Again a bad interpretation of Christianity. Jesus, as a former Christian should know is both man and God and it was his humanity that ascended into heaven. A former Christian. Should have known about God's omnipresence.

Hillside you take the New Atheist approach of Myers and Dawkins where Christianity is such twaddle any outsider view of it is acceptable and ignorance of it is no barrier to damningly judge it.

So what actually happened? Jesus’ body went up in the air and then what? Did it attain escape velocity? Is it still out there ascending like Voyager 2?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what actually happened? Jesus’ body went up in the air and then what? Did it attain escape velocity? Is it still out there ascending like Voyager 2?

You'll have to ask NASA.....New testament Apostles Space Agency.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside you take the New Atheist approach of Myers and Dawkins where Christianity is such twaddle…

No, my view of Christianity is that I’ve yet to hear a Christian apologist produce a justifying argument for it that I can‘t falsify and so I treat its claims accordingly. This by the way is the same approach you take to my claims about leprechauns.   

…any outsider view of it is acceptable and ignorance of it is no barrier to damningly judge it.

The Courtier’s Reply fallacy isn’t helping you here either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, my view of Christianity is that I’ve yet to hear a Christian apologist produce a justifying argument for it that I can‘t falsify and so I treat its claims accordingly. This by the way is the same approach you take to my claims about leprechauns.   

The Courtier’s Reply fallacy isn’t helping you here either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply

You're right, it's a view.

[Dicky Underpants]

Again a bad interpretation of Christianity. Jesus, as a former Christian should know is both man and God and it was his humanity that ascended into heaven. A former Christian. Should have known about God's omnipresence.

Certain amount of twaddle (to use your word) about the Incarnation - Ascension experience. Shall we try a summary: God is both immanent and transcendent. The Trinity of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is broken at the Incarnation. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are still omnipresent (not sure how you distinguish between them). How human you consider Jesus to have been rather depends on how much kenosis you allow him to have experienced (after all not many truly human people can walk on water and cure blindness at a touch). At the Ascension, he 'fills up' again - to translate the Greek word - and resumes his original status as part of the triune Godhead.

I'm not surprised that it took a few centuries to work out that that is what is supposed to have happened.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You're right, it's a view.

All beliefs are "views". Some views though are logically sound, while others are logically false. That's the difference between our views.

As so often too, your avoidance of the correction you were given is noted. 

[ProfessorDavey]

All beliefs are "views". Some views though are logically sound, while others are logically false. That's the difference between our views.

Some beliefs and views are intended to be entirely subjective - true for me, but not necessary true for you. Mozart is my favourite composer for example, or a preference for sauvignon blanc over chardonnay. And as entirely subjective preferences, then there is nothing more required than an acceptance that the individual whose subjective views we are discussing isn't lying for those views to be logically true.

But as soon as views and beliefs move from subjective to objective then logically consistent evidence is required - so while 'I prefer sauvignon blanc to chardonnay' is absolutely fine and logically consistent, 'sauvignon blanc is better than chardonnay' isn't as it implies objectivity rather than subjectivity. And this is where the whole belief in god due to personal experience falls down as so often it moves from subjectivity 'god appears real to me' to objectivity 'god exists'.

[Dicky Underpants]

.
And this is where the whole belief in god due to personal experience falls down as so often it moves from subjectivity 'god appears real to me' to objectivity 'god exists'.

And this is where Karl Barth (true believer) and Bertrand Russell would seem to  agree.
Though how the former got to his position of absolute faith in the Jesus of the NT, I haven't a clue. And I'm not inclined to plough through the several million words of his theology to find out.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Some beliefs and views are intended to be entirely subjective - true for me, but not necessary true for you. Mozart is my favourite composer for example, or a preference for sauvignon blanc over chardonnay. And as entirely subjective preferences, then there is nothing more required than an acceptance that the individual whose subjective views we are discussing isn't lying for those views to be logically true.

Well yes. By “view” I took Vlad to mean “things I state to be objectively, factually true for everyone” rather than “my personal aesthetic preference” or similar.   

But as soon as views and beliefs move from subjective to objective then logically consistent evidence is required - so while 'I prefer sauvignon blanc to chardonnay' is absolutely fine and logically consistent, 'sauvignon blanc is better than chardonnay' isn't as it implies objectivity rather than subjectivity. And this is where the whole belief in god due to personal experience falls down as so often it moves from subjectivity 'god appears real to me' to objectivity 'god exists'.

And bridging the gap from subjective opinion to objective fact has always Vlad’s (and every other theist’s I’m aware of) problem.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I’m not ignoring it – I'm dismissing it because it’s basic mistake in reasoning called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:

“Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

You cannot dismiss clear evidence by just labelling it.
Your label fails to acknowledge three things:
1.  Event X was a specific request for event Y to occur, calling upon the power of prayer.
2.  There was a high improbability that event Y could ever have happened, which was confirmed by a senior member of the medical staff who in her own words declared it to be a miracle.
3.  Event Y was predicted by a scripture reading just before it occurred.  I opened the bible at a random page without searching and my eyes were drawn to those words.

Thank you for that anecdote. Now then: how many times have you prayed for things that didn’t happen, and what method did you use to calculate whether or not the prayed for events that did happen happened any more frequently than would have been the case with no praying involved?

What I can say with all honesty is that the things in my life which I have prayed about have turned out better than things I have neglected to pray about.  In particular - answers to prayer about my education, career, marriage, children, parents have far exceeded my expectations.

“Miracles” are your claim, not mine – you tell me. You might though want to begin with a basic understanding of probability.   

You need to get to grips with the reality of what is improbable.  For example the inevitable consequences of physically defined material reactions alone being able to make judgements, form verifiable conclusions, discern what is good and what is evil - and choose between the two.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You cannot dismiss clear evidence by just labelling it.

I don’t. I dismiss it by identifying the basic logical fallacies on which your claim to the status of evidence at all rests.

Your label fails to acknowledge three things:…

Logical argument, not “label” but ok…

1.  Event X was a specific request for event Y to occur, calling upon the power of prayer.

I know. So?

2.  There was a high improbability that event Y could ever have happened, which was confirmed by a senior member of the medical staff who in her own words declared it to be a miracle.

Again, so?

3.  Event Y was predicted by a scripture reading just before it occurred.  I opened the bible at a random page without searching and my eyes were drawn to those words.

What point do you think you’re making here?

What I can say with all honesty is that the things in my life which I have prayed about have turned out better than things I have neglected to pray about.  In particular - answers to prayer about my education, career, marriage, children, parents have far exceeded my expectations.

You can say that with a much honesty as you like, but still you have no data to suggest that prayed for events have happened more frequently than not prayed for events. What you likely do have though is a heady cocktail of the availability heuristic and confirmation bias: you recall readily that time you prayed for a promotion and got it but not so readily the times the prayed for events didn’t happen as you wished, and you’ve taken the former to confirm your a priori faith belief that an interventionist god was listening to you.
 

You need to get to grips with the reality of what is improbable.  For example the inevitable consequences of physically defined material reactions alone being able to make judgements, form verifiable conclusions, discern what is good and what is evil - and choose between the two.

I’ve falsified that stupidity many times before now without rebuttal so I don’t know why you’ve just repeated the same wrongheadedness once again.

[Stranger]

You cannot dismiss clear evidence by just labelling it.
Your label fails to acknowledge three things:
1.  Event X was a specific request for event Y to occur, calling upon the power of prayer.
2.  There was a high improbability that event Y could ever have happened, which was confirmed by a senior member of the medical staff who in her own words declared it to be a miracle.
3.  Event Y was predicted by a scripture reading just before it occurred.  I opened the bible at a random page without searching and my eyes were drawn to those words.

It's not about a label, it's what it actually is, an single anecdote. You cannot ignore the fact that these stories are two-a-penny for all sorts of faiths, quack medicine, and so on.

Whenever proper studies have been done (as the Prof said) prayer has been shown to make no difference.

What I can say with all honesty is that the things in my life which I have prayed about have turned out better than things I have neglected to pray about.  In particular - answers to prayer about my education, career, marriage, children, parents have far exceeded my expectations.

And you've kept a detailed, written, contemporaneous record of both those things you prayed for and all the times you didn't? You also neglect that many many people pray for outcomes that never happen.

This is why anecdotal evidence is next to worthless.

You need to get to grips with the reality of what is improbable.  For example the inevitable consequences of physically defined material reactions alone being able to make judgements, form verifiable conclusions, discern what is good and what is evil - and choose between the two.

[Gordon]

Alan

Several Christians have prayed for me - yet I still have terminal cancer.

Care to explain why.

[ProfessorDavey]

You cannot dismiss clear evidence by just labelling it.
Your label fails to acknowledge three things:
1.  Event X was a specific request for event Y to occur, calling upon the power of prayer.
2.  There was a high improbability that event Y could ever have happened, which was confirmed by a senior member of the medical staff who in her own words declared it to be a miracle.
3.  Event Y was predicted by a scripture reading just before it occurred.  I opened the bible at a random page without searching and my eyes were drawn to those words.What I can say with all honesty is that the things in my life which I have prayed about have turned out better than things I have neglected to pray about.  In particular - answers to prayer about my education, career, marriage, children, parents have far exceeded my expectations.You need to get to grips with the reality of what is improbable.  For example the inevitable consequences of physically defined material reactions alone being able to make judgements, form verifiable conclusions, discern what is good and what is evil - and choose between the two.

And while you were busy praying I wonder what the medical staff were doing. Presumably they were working hard applying known interventions aimed at saving the life of someone with an aortic aneurysm.

This would probably involve primarily stabilising the patient to ensure that blood loss is minimised and providing intravenous fluids to prevent catastrophic loss of blood pressure resulting in multiple organ failure. This would usually be followed by some form of emergency repair procedure, often involving a stent.

So it is probably true that without medical intervention someone being admitted with an aortic aneurysm will die within hours. But provided the patient is admitted soon enough the chances of stabilisation and then recovery are really pretty good. I should know, my mother had exactly the same medical issue and would have died without intervention. She received the medical intervention and she survived. As far as I'm aware no-one was praying for her.

So I think you should be grateful to the medical teams and the medical procedures that have been developed that are evidence based and ... err ... work, rather than prayer which has no evidence base to demonstrate that it works outside of the well recognised placebo/nocebo effects. It was the medical intervention that saved your father-in-law's life, not god and prayer.

[Alan Burns]

And while you were busy praying I wonder what the medical staff were doing. Presumably they were working hard applying known interventions aimed at saving the life of someone with an aortic aneurysm.

This would probably involve primarily stabilising the patient to ensure that blood loss is minimised and providing intravenous fluids to prevent catastrophic loss of blood pressure resulting in multiple organ failure. This would usually be followed by some form of emergency repair procedure, often involving a stent.

So it is probably true that without medical intervention someone being admitted with an aortic aneurysm will die within hours. But provided the patient is admitted soon enough the chances of stabilisation and then recovery are really pretty good. I should know, my mother had exactly the same medical issue and would have died without intervention. She received the medical intervention and she survived. As far as I'm aware no-one was praying for her.

So I think you should be grateful to the medical teams and the medical procedures that have been developed that are evidence based and ... err ... work, rather than prayer which has no evidence base to demonstrate that it works outside of the well recognised placebo/nocebo effects. It was the medical intervention that saved your father-in-law's life, not god and prayer.

The medical team had done all they could.
When we arrived at the hospital he was on a morphine drip and oxygen to keep him as comfortable as possible.
We were told that his organs were failing and that "he would not regain consciousness - if he did it would be a miracle."
The medics left the room with his close family by his bedside.

Then a miracle happened - no emergency repairs or stent were needed.  Just a miraculous answer to prayer.

[Alan Burns]

Alan

Several Christians have prayed for me - yet I still have terminal cancer.

Care to explain why.

My wife and I say prayers for you every day, Gordon.
It is a two pronged prayer - for healing and the gift of faith.

[Nearly Sane]

My wife and I say prayers for you every day, Gordon.
It is a two pronged prayer - for healing and the gift of faith.

So faith would be a gift from your god, and you think that faith is a a good thing but so far your god has chosen not to give it. Makes your god seem a bit of a meanie. Esoecially if it's going to punish people for not having the thing it didn't give them. That makes it a mad meanie.

[Sriram]

If you understand it from a secular spirituality point of view, as a natural process of increasing ones level of consciousness, it will all make sense. But that requires insight .....

[Maeght]

If you understand it from a secular spirituality point of view, as a natural process of increasing ones level of consciousness, it will all make sense. But that requires insight .....

Or imagination.

[Gordon]

My wife and I say prayers for you every day, Gordon.
It is a two pronged prayer - for healing and the gift of faith.

I know you mean well, Alan: but even so, that is a double fail.