Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My personal prayers have never been tested for statistical analysys, but my own perception is that I have had prayers answered in abundance, getting much more than I asked for or expected.

And what makes you think that exactly the same outcomes wouldn't have occurred if you hadn't prayed at all, or indeed if you'd prayed to a different god entirely?

[Rhiannon]

What we can do, though, is analyse large numbers of events to see if statistically prayer has an effect on the trends.

We've done that. It doesn't.

My personal prayers have never been tested for statistical analysys, but my own perception is that I have had prayers answered in abundance, getting much more than I asked for or expected.

Which is very nice.

Why haven't my very sincere Christian friends' prayers been heard? Why not my mother's?

Why you and not them?

[floo]

What we can do, though, is analyse large numbers of events to see if statistically prayer has an effect on the trends.

We've done that. It doesn't.

My personal prayers have never been tested for statistical analysys, but my own perception is that I have had prayers answered in abundance, getting much more than I asked for or expected.

Which is very nice.

Why haven't my very sincere Christian friends' prayers been heard? Why not my mother's?

Why you and not them?

The deity more often than not appears to have its hearing aid switched off!

[Shaker]

And what makes you think that exactly the same outcomes wouldn't have occurred if you hadn't prayed at all, or indeed if you'd prayed to a different god entirely?

The interesting thing is that in #4200 Alan actually admitted that there's no way of discerning the difference between a prayer being answered by God - or not - and the operation of chance events, making prayer indefeasible and therefore worthless. This is a point put forward by me and others many times over a long period - it finally seems to have sunk in.

Progress, perhaps?

[Leonard James]

The deity more often than not appears to have its hearing aid switched off!

I wouldn't blame it ... listening to all those sycophants' praises and requests must be very wearying. 

[Alan Burns]

And what makes you think that exactly the same outcomes wouldn't have occurred if you hadn't prayed at all, or indeed if you'd prayed to a different god entirely?

The interesting thing is that in #4200 Alan actually admitted that there's no way of discerning the difference between a prayer being answered by God - or not - and the operation of chance events, making prayer indefeasible and therefore worthless. This is a point put forward by me and others many times over a long period - it finally seems to have sunk in.

Progress, perhaps?

I believe that God intervenes by manipulating natural forces, just as a human can intervene by manipulating the forces within the brain cells over which he or she has control.  The difference is that God will have control over many more forces than the human, but we cannot detect the hand of God directly, just as we can't detect the will of the human soul directly.

[Shaker]

But that's just a belief with absolutely no evidence of any kind whatever to support it. So we're back to your belief being unevidenced, unsupported and indefeasible.

[Sassy]

Sass you are obviously talking about yourself where ignorance and lack of knowledge is concerned!

What I find incredibly ridiculous is your post. When you know absolutely nothing about Christianity or the bible. I think you might want to look in the mirror there is the person who really does lack knowledge and writes in ignorance.

[Outrider]

What we can do, though, is analyse large numbers of events to see if statistically prayer has an effect on the trends.

We've done that. It doesn't.

My personal prayers have never been tested for statistical analysys, but my own perception is that I have had prayers answered in abundance, getting much more than I asked for or expected.

Your own personal prayers constitute an anecdote rather than data, subject as they are to confirmation bias, lack of a control group for comparison and limitations of scope.

I've got much more than I asked for, mainly because I've not asked for anything - surely that makes non-prayer subjectively better than prayer?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What we can do, though, is analyse large numbers of events to see if statistically prayer has an effect on the trends.

We've done that. It doesn't.

My personal prayers have never been tested for statistical analysys, but my own perception is that I have had prayers answered in abundance, getting much more than I asked for or expected.

Your own personal prayers constitute an anecdote rather than data, subject as they are to confirmation bias, lack of a control group for comparison and limitations of scope.

I've got much more than I asked for, mainly because I've not asked for anything - surely that makes non-prayer subjectively better than prayer?

O.

Yes Alan Burns...........what 's your game?.........get a prayer life that fits the scientific method

[Leonard James]

Yes Alan Burns...........what 's your game?.........get a prayer life that fits the scientific method

Any method that relies on testable and repeatable evidence will do.

[Outrider]

What we can do, though, is analyse large numbers of events to see if statistically prayer has an effect on the trends.

We've done that. It doesn't.

My personal prayers have never been tested for statistical analysys, but my own perception is that I have had prayers answered in abundance, getting much more than I asked for or expected.

Your own personal prayers constitute an anecdote rather than data, subject as they are to confirmation bias, lack of a control group for comparison and limitations of scope.

I've got much more than I asked for, mainly because I've not asked for anything - surely that makes non-prayer subjectively better than prayer?

O.

Yes Alan Burns...........what 's your game?.........get a prayer life that fits the scientific method

Not so much - rather, get a definition of 'prayer' that either doesn't make measurable claims that it then fails to live up to, or that demonstrably works.

If the claim was 'prayer makes the person praying feel better' I suspect the data would support that claim, but when it's put to people that this is the main effect of prayer (apart from building part of the ritual behaviour that constitutes religious tribalism) is to feel better it's typically denied.

O.

[floo]

Sass you are obviously talking about yourself where ignorance and lack of knowledge is concerned!

What I find incredibly ridiculous is your post. When you know absolutely nothing about Christianity or the bible. I think you might want to look in the mirror there is the person who really does lack knowledge and writes in ignorance.

I know a lot more about it than you, who seems to know NOTHING at all!

[torridon]

I believe that God intervenes by manipulating natural forces, just as a human can intervene by manipulating the forces within the brain cells over which he or she has control.  The difference is that God will have control over many more forces than the human, but we cannot detect the hand of God directly, just as we can't detect the will of the human soul directly.

We can detect will directly.  Only this week a paraplegic man fitted with robotic legs was able to walk again because the software was able to detect and interpret his will.

[Leonard James]

Sass you are obviously talking about yourself where ignorance and lack of knowledge is concerned!

What I find incredibly ridiculous is your post. When you know absolutely nothing about Christianity or the bible. I think you might want to look in the mirror there is the person who really does lack knowledge and writes in ignorance.

I know a lot more about it than you, who seems to know NOTHING at all!

Sassy's 'knowledge' is nothing more than her personal interpretation of the Bible stories.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I believe that God intervenes by manipulating natural forces, just as a human can intervene by manipulating the forces within the brain cells over which he or she has control.  The difference is that God will have control over many more forces than the human, but we cannot detect the hand of God directly, just as we can't detect the will of the human soul directly.

We can detect will directly.  Only this week a paraplegic man fitted with robotic legs was able to walk again because the software was able to detect and interpret his will.

Torridon. In view of your faith in the direction of science may I ask you that were experiences recordable and playable in the minds of others....would you accede to having an experience of God?

[torridon]

Torridon. In view of your faith in the direction of science may I ask you that were experiences recordable and playable in the minds of others....would you accede to having an experience of God?

Yes, most certainly.  Maybe I'd need to get one of those god helmet things, as I've already spent years trying to have some sort of religious experience through unaided traditional means, like prayer, and failing.

[Rhiannon]

I'd like to see what would happen if prayer could be proven to work. How would the church square a god who only heals/ answers prayer if asked by those who worship him with a god of endless love and mercy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Torridon. In view of your faith in the direction of science may I ask you that were experiences recordable and playable in the minds of others....would you accede to having an experience of God?

Yes, most certainly.  Maybe I'd need to get one of those god helmet things, as I've already spent years trying to have some sort of religious experience through unaided traditional means, like prayer, and failing.

Jeremiah 29:13

[torridon]

Torridon. In view of your faith in the direction of science may I ask you that were experiences recordable and playable in the minds of others....would you accede to having an experience of God?

Yes, most certainly.  Maybe I'd need to get one of those god helmet things, as I've already spent years trying to have some sort of religious experience through unaided traditional means, like prayer, and failing.

Jeremiah 29:13

'He who bangeth head on wall too long going to get mighty big headache'  - ancient chinese takeaway owner.

[Alan Burns]

To help you understand emergence, try this: the English language is a complicated thing isn't it - involved, data rich, rules orientated etc and yet there's no-one in charge to invent or regulate it. It's just emerged, and you wouldn't feel the need to invent a god to make it so. If you can accept that very complex properties like language can emerge from simpler component units, why then arbitrarily decide that it can't in respect of just one other property - consciousness?

English language comprises of words.  In physical terms, words are just ink stains on paper, or vibrating air molecules.  The meaning of these words does not reside in the words themselves.  The meaning resides in whatever perceives the content of the human brain cells which react to the image or the sound of the word.  The meaning does not reside in the brain cell, which is just a collection of atomic particles, it resides in something which, at any moment, perceives the collective activity of many brain cells and interprets meaning from them.  The perception is external to what is being perceived.  Our brain cells are just messages, like the ink stains on the paper, which get interpreted through perception.  So is there an invisible, intangible cloud of perception which reveals meaning to our physical brain activity?  Could it be the human soul?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Torridon. In view of your faith in the direction of science may I ask you that were experiences recordable and playable in the minds of others....would you accede to having an experience of God?

Yes, most certainly.  Maybe I'd need to get one of those god helmet things, as I've already spent years trying to have some sort of religious experience through unaided traditional means, like prayer, and failing.

Jeremiah 29:13

'He who bangeth head on wall too long going to get mighty big headache'  - ancient chinese takeaway owner.

Yes very good.

I'm interested to know what an atheist is doing spending several years searching for God. Given Jeremiah 29:13 what is it which confirms your sincerity in your exploits and your conclusion that you have not in fact found God.
Also I am interested in what it is/was that sustained you in your search and finally, given your response you can now laugh at it.

I write as someone who felt attracted to seeking God who, as he got more real and personally relevant, wanted to recoil prior to accepting him.

[Alan Burns]

I believe that God intervenes by manipulating natural forces, just as a human can intervene by manipulating the forces within the brain cells over which he or she has control.  The difference is that God will have control over many more forces than the human, but we cannot detect the hand of God directly, just as we can't detect the will of the human soul directly.

We can detect will directly.  Only this week a paraplegic man fitted with robotic legs was able to walk again because the software was able to detect and interpret his will.

What is being detected is the physical messages which have been invoked by the free will of the human being.

[Outrider]

To help you understand emergence, try this: the English language is a complicated thing isn't it - involved, data rich, rules orientated etc and yet there's no-one in charge to invent or regulate it. It's just emerged, and you wouldn't feel the need to invent a god to make it so. If you can accept that very complex properties like language can emerge from simpler component units, why then arbitrarily decide that it can't in respect of just one other property - consciousness?

English language comprises of words.  In physical terms, words are just ink stains on paper, or vibrating air molecules.  The meaning of these words does not reside in the words themselves.  The meaning resides in whatever perceives the content of the human brain cells which react to the image or the sound of the word.  The meaning does not reside in the brain cell, which is just a collection of atomic particles, it resides in something which, at any moment, perceives the collective activity of many brain cells and interprets meaning from them.  The perception is external to what is being perceived.  Our brain cells are just messages, like the ink stains on the paper, which get interpreted through perception.  So is there an invisible, intangigble cloud of perception which reveals meaning to our physical brain activity?  Could it be the human soul?

There is no 'cloud', and it's certainly not intangible. There is a pattern of electro-chemical activity, and both the meaning and the awareness of the meaning are components of that pattern at that time.

O.

[Alan Burns]

To help you understand emergence, try this: the English language is a complicated thing isn't it - involved, data rich, rules orientated etc and yet there's no-one in charge to invent or regulate it. It's just emerged, and you wouldn't feel the need to invent a god to make it so. If you can accept that very complex properties like language can emerge from simpler component units, why then arbitrarily decide that it can't in respect of just one other property - consciousness?

English language comprises of words.  In physical terms, words are just ink stains on paper, or vibrating air molecules.  The meaning of these words does not reside in the words themselves.  The meaning resides in whatever perceives the content of the human brain cells which react to the image or the sound of the word.  The meaning does not reside in the brain cell, which is just a collection of atomic particles, it resides in something which, at any moment, perceives the collective activity of many brain cells and interprets meaning from them.  The perception is external to what is being perceived.  Our brain cells are just messages, like the ink stains on the paper, which get interpreted through perception.  So is there an invisible, intangigble cloud of perception which reveals meaning to our physical brain activity?  Could it be the human soul?

There is no 'cloud', and it's certainly not intangible. There is a pattern of electro-chemical activity, and both the meaning and the awareness of the meaning are components of that pattern at that time.

O.

But the word "pattern" implies something which is perceived.  The pattern does not perceive itself.  A pattern is only recognised by the perceiver of that pattern.