Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you track the number of rare events (low) and the number of prayers  (inordinately high) eventually you are going to get some that coincide. To think otherwise is to significantly underestimate the number of things in the universe (to paraphrase Tim Minchin).

Gumball machine theory of God? Expectation that he should always answer prayer?

No always, necessarily. Just any statistically significant demonstration that prayer has an effect in a fraction of cases would do.

As to the various 'prayer as a form of meditation' (somewhat of a simplification, perhaps) idea that prayer is for the benefit of the person doing the praying - I can buy the idea, but it feeds into the suggestion in the first place that people who say they are praying for you are actually praying for them.

O.

Yes but we are looking at the wrong thing here. Prayer instead of God. And probably a view of prayer which is the construct of an antitheist mindset.

My late Dad bless him rarely remembered to give pocket money and sometimes would argue out of giving it when pressed. None of these facts has any bearing on his existence.

I tuned into his reluctance and ceased arguing but have since acknowledged a non pocket money based benevolence.

[Outrider]

Yes but we are looking at the wrong thing here. Prayer instead of God.

Things that do exist but don't work instead of things that we have no evidence for that don't work...

And probably a view of prayer which is the construct of an antitheist mindset.

You believers invented it, we're trying to understand where you're going with it - it seems there are any number of divergent ideas.

My late Dad bless him rarely remembered to give pocket money and sometimes would argue out of giving it when pressed. None of these facts has any bearing on his existence.

Whereas I used to write letters to Santa, and presents duly arrived...

O.

[torridon]

It is clear logic that if freewill did not exist that no one could be guilty of sin or breaking the law.

Logical fallacy, argumentum ad consequentiam probably.

You might as well try to argue that the existence of churches and mosques are evidence for God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes but we are looking at the wrong thing here. Prayer instead of God.

Things that do exist but don't work instead of things that we have no evidence for that don't work...

And probably a view of prayer which is the construct of an antitheist mindset.

You believers invented it, we're trying to understand where you're going with it - it seems there are any number of divergent ideas.

Did we? What is it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes but we are looking at the wrong thing here. Prayer instead of God.

Things that do exist but don't work instead of things that we have no evidence for that don't work...

And probably a view of prayer which is the construct of an antitheist mindset.

You believers invented it, we're trying to understand where you're going with it - it seems there are any number of divergent ideas.

My late Dad bless him rarely remembered to give pocket money and sometimes would argue out of giving it when pressed. None of these facts has any bearing on his existence.

Whereas I used to write letters to Santa, and presents duly arrived...

O.

Santa is for everybody An old man with a white beard.
God is only that for artists and antitheists.

[Outrider]

Yes but we are looking at the wrong thing here. Prayer instead of God.

Things that do exist but don't work instead of things that we have no evidence for that don't work...

And probably a view of prayer which is the construct of an antitheist mindset.

You believers invented it, we're trying to understand where you're going with it - it seems there are any number of divergent ideas.

Did we? What is it?

So you don't really know either? That explains a lot...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes but we are looking at the wrong thing here. Prayer instead of God.

Things that do exist but don't work instead of things that we have no evidence for that don't work...

And probably a view of prayer which is the construct of an antitheist mindset.

You believers invented it, we're trying to understand where you're going with it - it seems there are any number of divergent ideas.

Did we? What is it?

So you don't really know either? That explains a lot...

O.

The Gumball machine hypothesis of prayer isn't even held by fundementalists but is held by antitheists and I believe those who seek to scientifically research prayer.

To make Dawkins objections to NOMA work it is critical that the accepted definition of prayer be twisted to the Gumball machine conception of it.

[Outrider]

The Gumball machine hypothesis of prayer isn't even held by fundementalists but is held by antitheists and I believe those who seek to scientifically research prayer.

There is no 'hypothesis' of prayer - no-one is suggesting that it actually works, it seems, but everyone's calling for it.

To make Dawkins objections to NOMA work it is critical that the accepted definition of prayer be twisted to the Gumball machine conception of it.

What 'accepted definition of prayer'? As with everything else, it's alluring, deceptively, metaphysically vague - it's something that's definitively good because someone says so, somewhere, it doesn't actually do anything but you must do it or badness, except that it's not what gods or heavens are about.

There is no more an accepted definition of prayer than there is an accepted definition of Christianity, or god, there are just conflicting opinions in the absence of any actual evidence or phenomena.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Gumball machine hypothesis of prayer isn't even held by fundementalists but is held by antitheists and I believe those who seek to scientifically research prayer.

There is no 'hypothesis' of prayer - no-one is suggesting that it actually works, it seems, but everyone's calling for it.

To make Dawkins objections to NOMA work it is critical that the accepted definition of prayer be twisted to the Gumball machine conception of it.

What 'accepted definition of prayer'? As with everything else, it's alluring, deceptively, metaphysically vague - it's something that's definitively good because someone says so, somewhere, it doesn't actually do anything but you must do it or badness, except that it's not what gods or heavens are about.

There is no more an accepted definition of prayer than there is an accepted definition of Christianity, or god, there are just conflicting opinions in the absence of any actual evidence or phenomena.

O.

If there is no accepted definition of prayer.
What is Dawkins doing suggesting it is susceptible to scientific investigation?
What is it that scientists who are investigating prayer investigating.
What is Tim Minchin possibly think he's talking about when he makes a conclusion about it
(In between having funny turns)?

[Outrider]

If there is no accepted definition of prayer.
What is Dawkins doing suggesting it is susceptible to scientific investigation?
What is it that scientists who are investigating prayer investigating.

They're fairly clear which version of 'prayer' they're talking about, if you read, for the purposes of their point. We're looking for the same clarity from you.

What is Tim Minchin possibly think he's talking about when he makes a conclusion about it (In between having funny turns)?

You'd have to ask him, he's probably talking about how ridiculous various artifacts of human society - religion included - are, in a humorous fashion. That's his typical methodology.

O.

[Leonard James]

If that choice to ignore it is determined by prior events then it is not a demonstration of free will. The fact that we can make apparent choices is not proof of freewill as you cannot show that these are free choices rather than being determined by nature/nurture etc.

If I choose not to do what my nature/nurture inclines me to do, then I have free will. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to resist it, would I?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there is no accepted definition of prayer.
What is Dawkins doing suggesting it is susceptible to scientific investigation?
What is it that scientists who are investigating prayer investigating.

They're fairly clear which version of 'prayer' they're talking about, if you read, for the purposes of their point. We're looking for the same clarity from you.

What is Tim Minchin possibly think he's talking about when he makes a conclusion about it (In between having funny turns)?

You'd have to ask him, he's probably talking about how ridiculous various artifacts of human society - religion included - are, in a humorous fashion. That's his typical methodology.

O.

Argumentum ad ridiculum?

[Maeght]

If that choice to ignore it is determined by prior events then it is not a demonstration of free will. The fact that we can make apparent choices is not proof of freewill as you cannot show that these are free choices rather than being determined by nature/nurture etc.

If I choose not to do what my nature/nurture inclines me to do, then I have free will. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to resist it, would I?

The choice you make 'consciously' could just as well be determined by nature/nurture though - hence not free will.

[Outrider]

If there is no accepted definition of prayer.
What is Dawkins doing suggesting it is susceptible to scientific investigation?
What is it that scientists who are investigating prayer investigating.

They're fairly clear which version of 'prayer' they're talking about, if you read, for the purposes of their point. We're looking for the same clarity from you.

What is Tim Minchin possibly think he's talking about when he makes a conclusion about it (In between having funny turns)?

You'd have to ask him, he's probably talking about how ridiculous various artifacts of human society - religion included - are, in a humorous fashion. That's his typical methodology.

O.

Argumentum ad ridiculum?

Where? In your continued failure to actually engage with points?

O.

[Leonard James]

If that choice to ignore it is determined by prior events then it is not a demonstration of free will. The fact that we can make apparent choices is not proof of freewill as you cannot show that these are free choices rather than being determined by nature/nurture etc.

But it is not nature/nurture or prior history which makes the choice.  It is your conscious self.

Which is informed by everything that has gone before including arguments about free will.  See Leonard thinks he can make a choice based on nature/nurture and then, because he has free will, ignore it.  But he's only doing that because his prior history includes arguments about free will, setting up in him a desire to prove he has free will.

The very fact that Leonard CAN choose one way or the other is proof positive of his ability to do do. If he didn't have free will he would be obliged to follow his nature/nurture command.

[Outrider]

The very fact that Leonard CAN choose one way or the other is proof positive of his ability to do do. If he didn't have free will he would be obliged to follow his nature/nurture command.

Can he actually choose, though? How do we test that, in a given number of identical scenarios, Leonard would select differently?

That there are other options that could be taken isn't the same thing as saying that, at that moment, in that place, with that particular set of circumstances and influences, Leonard was actually capable of choosing one of the other options available, even though he was aware of them. How do we know that Leonard would not inevitably resort to the same option each and every time?

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

If there is no accepted definition of prayer.
What is Dawkins doing suggesting it is susceptible to scientific investigation?
What is it that scientists who are investigating prayer investigating.

They're fairly clear which version of 'prayer' they're talking about, if you read, for the purposes of their point. We're looking for the same clarity from you.

What is Tim Minchin possibly think he's talking about when he makes a conclusion about it (In between having funny turns)?

You'd have to ask him, he's probably talking about how ridiculous various artifacts of human society - religion included - are, in a humorous fashion. That's his typical methodology.

O.

Argumentum ad ridiculum?

Where? In your continued failure to actually engage with points?

O.

...that I believe is what is colloquially known as Argumentum Vlad ridiculum. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there is no accepted definition of prayer.
What is Dawkins doing suggesting it is susceptible to scientific investigation?
What is it that scientists who are investigating prayer investigating.

They're fairly clear which version of 'prayer' they're talking about, if you read, for the purposes of their point. We're looking for the same clarity from you.

What is Tim Minchin possibly think he's talking about when he makes a conclusion about it (In between having funny turns)?

You'd have to ask him, he's probably talking about how ridiculous various artifacts of human society - religion included - are, in a humorous fashion. That's his typical methodology.

O.

Argumentum ad ridiculum?

Where? In your continued failure to actually engage with points?

O.

...that I believe is what is colloquially known as Argumentum Vlad ridiculum. 

LOL.

In terms of engaging with the points...I think he really means ''accepting his conclusions''

[Outrider]

In terms of engaging with the points...I think he really means ''accepting his conclusions''

Or refuting the logic of them, if you'd prefer, instead of avoiding the actual points and trying to ask questions of your own as though placing the burden on the questioner were ever a valid notion.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In terms of engaging with the points...I think he really means ''accepting his conclusions''

Or refuting the logic of them, if you'd prefer, instead of avoiding the actual points and trying to ask questions of your own as though placing the burden on the questioner were ever a valid notion.

O.

You seem to be refuting the logic that natural explanations for an experience could be exhausted.

[Outrider]

In terms of engaging with the points...I think he really means ''accepting his conclusions''

Or refuting the logic of them, if you'd prefer, instead of avoiding the actual points and trying to ask questions of your own as though placing the burden on the questioner were ever a valid notion.

O.

You seem to be refuting the logic that natural explanations for an experience could be exhausted.

No, refuting the assumption that because I'VE run out of natural explanations, therefore there can be no natural explanations.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In terms of engaging with the points...I think he really means ''accepting his conclusions''

Or refuting the logic of them, if you'd prefer, instead of avoiding the actual points and trying to ask questions of your own as though placing the burden on the questioner were ever a valid notion.

O.

You seem to be refuting the logic that natural explanations for an experience could be exhausted.

No, refuting the assumption that because I'VE run out of natural explanations, therefore there can be no natural explanations.

O.

Give us one then.

[Leonard James]

The very fact that Leonard CAN choose one way or the other is proof positive of his ability to do do. If he didn't have free will he would be obliged to follow his nature/nurture command.

Can he actually choose, though? How do we test that, in a given number of identical scenarios, Leonard would select differently?

I've no idea how you could test it, I simply know I can select an option. Let me turn the question back on you ... how do you test that he wouldn't select differently?

That there are other options that could be taken isn't the same thing as saying that, at that moment, in that place, with that particular set of circumstances and influences, Leonard was actually capable of choosing one of the other options available, even though he was aware of them. How do we know that Leonard would not inevitably resort to the same option each and every time?

You don't, because he is capable of choosing otherwise. 



You can't possibly know what my option will be because you are not me.

[Outrider]

You seem to be refuting the logic that natural explanations for an experience could be exhausted.

No, refuting the assumption that because I'VE run out of natural explanations, therefore there can be no natural explanations.

O.

Give us one then.

I've run out. The absence of evidence (my lack of naturalistic explanation) does not constitute evidence of absence (does not lead to 'therefore there is no naturalistic explanation').

Evidence for a non-naturalistic explanation, and a methodology to verify it, would do that...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be refuting the logic that natural explanations for an experience could be exhausted.

No, refuting the assumption that because I'VE run out of natural explanations, therefore there can be no natural explanations.

O.

Give us one then.

I've run out. The absence of evidence (my lack of naturalistic explanation) does not constitute evidence of absence (does not lead to 'therefore there is no naturalistic explanation').

Evidence for a non-naturalistic explanation, and a methodology to verify it, would do that...

O.

I have a life to look for explanations but then one has to engage with what one has encountered.

As CS has pointed out.....the explanation is not the experience.