Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

The comment you quote may have been presumptuous.

It would be more correct to say that I was not aware of any sceptics in the audience.  There were no questions, but lots of applause.  The point I was making earlier was that she would have had to be confident in answering any sceptics had they questioned her.  And she may well have had to do so in the informal discussions she engaged in after the talk.

I would also like to point out that the miraculous healing was not the main subject of her talk.  Most of her talk was concerned with her own journey in faith which occurred before she came across the healing.

I would have thought the mere mention of miracles should have been enough of an indication to you that it was  time  to switch over to your horoscopes or tea leaf readings Alan.

ippy

[torridon]

The comment you quote may have been presumptuous.

It would be more correct to say that I was not aware of any sceptics in the audience.  There were no questions, but lots of applause.  The point I was making earlier was that she would have had to be confident in answering any sceptics had they questioned her.  And she may well have had to do so in the informal discussions she engaged in after the talk.

I would also like to point out that the miraculous healing was not the main subject of her talk.  Most of her talk was concerned with her own journey in faith which occurred before she came across the healing.

Probably fair to say this lady was 'preaching to the converted' and such an audience would lap up stories of alleged miracle healing, it helps to confirm their bias. To eliminate bias we would acknowledge the bigger picture in which evidently the vast majority of prayers go unanswered, and even if it were the case that some invisible supreme being is tuning in to the thoughts of humans on this planet, his patchy interventions suggest a being that is either highly capricious or highly incompetent, neither of which are consistent with a divine being of unalloyed beneficence.

[Shaker]

The comment you quote may have been presumptuous.

Cue backpedalling in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... go.

There were no questions, but lots of applause.

I'm sure there was - uncritical applause by the sound of it. 

The point I was making earlier was that she would have had to be confident in answering any sceptics had they questioned her.  And she may well have had to do so in the informal discussions she engaged in after the talk.

But you don't actually know this.

Moreover, "answering the sceptics" would not have involved repeating "No, it really did happen, honest, swear. Really really really" with progressively increasing volume and vehemence - the typical ploy for those who make fantastic claims they can't substantiate - but in providing evidence for her story. Names, dates, times, places and so on. Specifics that allow people to check out the story.

I would also like to point out that the miraculous healing was not the main subject of her talk.  Most of her talk was concerned with her own journey in faith which occurred before she came across the healing.

Doubtless fascinating for those fascinated by that sort of thing but for sceptical, rational, critical thinking people enquiry into a quite extraordinary claim made in the course of the talk would have been in order.

[Alan Burns]

Probably fair to say this lady was 'preaching to the converted' and such an audience would lap up stories of alleged miracle healing, it helps to confirm their bias. To eliminate bias we would acknowledge the bigger picture in which evidently the vast majority of prayers go unanswered, and even if it were the case that some invisible supreme being is tuning in to the thoughts of humans on this planet, his patchy interventions suggest a being that is either highly capricious or highly incompetent, neither of which are consistent with a divine being of unalloyed beneficence.

If such miracles were the norm, they would not be seen as miracles by secularists, but naturally occurring phenomena.  Just as the miracle of human free will has been dismissed as "natural" since  the secularist thinking assumes that it can't be true free will, but a naturally induced reaction over which there can be no control.

[torridon]

If such miracles were the norm, they would not be seen as miracles by secularists, but naturally occurring phenomena....

So God fails to answer prayers normally in order that the exceptions will be seen as miracles by 'secularists'.  Hmpph.  Try telling that to grieving parents whose child just died despite all their supplications.

[wigginhall]

Yes, an interesting law of infrequency cited by AB.  God has to keep his healing interventions on the low side, otherwise people would become  blasé and casual about them, and not realize that here are miracles!   Isn't God so clever?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This thread is beginning to whiff un peu of ''If there was a God he'd do as I say''.
Which after ,well, years of arrogant and superior New Atheist Rhetoric and Dogma, would actually be a line to explore.

My other favourite is: A deist God is more acceptable but he must never intervene otherwise we will confiscate his badge''.

In the light of the dogmatic and sometimes down right abusive approach here revisiting these is long overdue. I can't see progress in the discussion of religion here though....I fear the forum is doomed to be a moaning ground for new atheists...a place where you come to have tea served to you by theists Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho.

[Sebastian Toe]

This thread is beginning to whiff un peu of ''If there was a God he'd do as I say''.
Which after ,well, years of arrogant and superior New Atheist Rhetoric and Dogma, would actually be a line to explore.

My other favourite is: A deist God is more acceptable but he must never intervene otherwise we will confiscate his badge''.

In the light of the dogmatic and sometimes down right abusive approach here revisiting these is long overdue. I can't see progress in the discussion of religion here though....I fear the forum is doomed to be a moaning ground for new atheists...a place where you come to have tea served to you by theists Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho.

You'll be leaving then?
Indefinitely?

[Alan Burns]

So God fails to answer prayers normally in order that the exceptions will be seen as miracles by 'secularists'.  Hmpph.  Try telling that to grieving parents whose child just died despite all their supplications.

I firmly believe that every sincere prayer said in faith does get answered to fulfil our needs.  If every prayer for healing was answered in the way we wished, none of us would get to heaven because we would never leave this earth!  God must recognise that spiritual health is more important than physical needs.  But having said that, I can look back on my life and see how wonderfully God has answered my prayers - for my education, my career, my marriage, my children, and for my wonderful parents.  Having started off life in a one bedroom terraced house in Middlesbrough where we lived as a family of five with my elder brother and sister, then transferred to Thorntree council estate described as one of the most deprived areas in England, I must have had many opportunities to feel sorry for myself.  However, I believe that every second of our lives on this earth is a precious gift from God, and sadly, we take so many of His gifts for granted.

[Shaker]

I firmly believe that every sincere prayer said in faith does get answered to fulfil our needs.  If every prayer for healing was answered in the way we wished, none of us would get to heaven because we would never leave this earth!  God must recognise that spiritual health is more important than physical needs.  But having said that, I can look back on my life and see how wonderfully God has answered my prayers - for my education, my career, my marriage, my children, and for my wonderful parents.

Those things are a combination of hard work and sheer luck, Alan.

Some people have wretched, even abusive marriages. Some people have terrible, horrible children. Some people have distant or even downright abusive parents. What's going on there - a momentary lapse of attention on your god's part, perhaps?

Truly, the egotism, the self-centredness of some believers knows no bounds.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There were no questions, but lots of applause.

Can I suggest that now would be a good time for you to look up the term "confirmation bias"?

You're welcome.

[Shaker]

AB,

Can I suggest that now would be a good time for you to look up the term "confirmation bias"?

Would it make a difference? He claims he knows all about logical fallacies anyway.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Can I suggest that now would be a good time for you to look up the term "confirmation bias"?

You're welcome.

It is very apparent to me that the phrase "confirmation bias" can be used to explain away any of God's answers to prayer.

[Shaker]

It is very apparent to me that the phrase "confirmation bias" can be used to explain away any of God's answers to prayer.

Look up 'begging the question' while you're at it.

[Alan Burns]

Truly, the egotism, the self-centredness of some believers knows no bounds.

I think you misunderstand the central message of the Christian Gospels.  I know many of us fall short of what God wants, but it is quite the opposite of self centredness.  We are called to love God with all our heart and strength, and to love our neighbour as ourselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If such miracles were the norm, they would not be seen as miracles by secularists, but naturally occurring phenomena.  Just as the miracle of human free will has been dismissed as "natural" since  the secularist thinking assumes that it can't be true free will, but a naturally induced reaction over which there can be no control.

So just for funsies, imagine for a moment that there is no "God", and that prayers don't therefore get answered. Imagine too that, despite this, still some people believe that both these conjectures were true.

What then would happen when those people prayed for a desired outcome? The answer would be just as you described - almost always the hope wouldn't be realised, but every now and and again it would because surprising things happen quite often for entirely naturalistic reasons.

What then would you make of such people when it was explained to them that the world behaves just as you'd expect it to if there was no "God", and in reply they indulged in fantastically convoluted casuistry along the lines of, "But maybe God has to ration his favours capriciously so that those few people at least would somehow think the "answered prayer" hypothesis to be more credible that way"?

Does it really not occur to you that the opposite of that is more sensible - if this God of your answered prayers more frequently than you'd expect surprising thing to happen anyway, then there'd be something to think about?

You might want to try looking up "Occam's razor" about now too by the way.   

[Shaker]

I think you misunderstand the central message of the Christian Gospels.  I know many of us fall short of what God wants

I think you misunderstand - I wasn't referring to 'falling short' of some imaginary standard but of people who suffer due to sheer bad fortune and nothing more.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is very apparent to me that the phrase "confirmation bias" can be used to explain away any of God's answers to prayer.

Then you've missed the point. Had the audience you described bothered to ask questions that would have disconfirmed the answer they really wanted to be true instead of just bursting into applause, then they may have got closer to the truth of the matter.

It's not confirmation bias that "explains away God's answers to prayer" at all - it's scepticism and reason.

You should try it. 

[Alan Burns]

I think you misunderstand - I wasn't referring to 'falling short' of some imaginary standard but of people who suffer due to sheer bad fortune and nothing more.

It is very easy to point out people who suffer terrible misfortune.  But no earthly life is free from suffering, and God has promised that those who believe in Him will be given strength to endure whatever comes.

[Shaker]

It is very easy to point out people who suffer terrible misfortune.

Especially when compared to those who practically dislocate their shoulders patting themselves on the back for their good fortune.

But no earthly life is free from suffering

I had noticed that. Your god apparently has not.

God has promised that those who believe in Him will be given strength to endure whatever comes.

So why do so many not endure it then?

[Alan Burns]

It's not confirmation bias that "explains away God's answers to prayer" at all - it's scepticism and reason.

If you really want to, you can always find a reason not to believe.  The Devil has them in abundance. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Would it make a difference? He claims he knows all about logical fallacies anyway.

My experience is that, rather than understand them, he just dismisses them out of hand as "man-made". It's curious then that he relies on fallacious thinking over and over again when he tries to make arguments for his beliefs – perhaps he thinks that a very bad argument magically becomes a good one because it's him using it or something?

Who can possibly say...?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If you really want to, you can always find a reason not to believe.  The Devil has them in abundance.

What I want is nether here nor there. I find that I can't believe in "God" for exactly the same reason that you can't believe in leprechauns: there's no cogent thinking that would lead me to that conclusion. Nor incidentally is there cogent reasoning to think there's a "Devil" either - but then again I don't have a mindset from the twelfth century, so lucky me eh? 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So just for funsies, imagine for a moment that there is no "God", and that prayers don't therefore get answered. Imagine too that, despite this, still some people believe that both these conjectures were true.

What then would happen when those people prayed for a desired outcome? The answer would be just as you described - almost always the hope wouldn't be realised, but every now and and again it would because surprising things happen quite often for entirely naturalistic reasons.

What then would you make of such people when it was explained to them that the world behaves just as you'd expect it to if there was no "God", and in reply they indulged in fantastically convoluted casuistry along the lines of, "But maybe God has to ration his favours capriciously so that those few people at least would somehow think the "answered prayer" hypothesis to be more credible that way"?

Does it really not occur to you that the opposite of that is more sensible - if this God of your answered prayers more frequently than you'd expect surprising thing to happen anyway, then there'd be something to think about?

You might want to try looking up "Occam's razor" about now too by the way.

But the very act of imagining this scenario requires me to invoke my God given gift of free will which you claim to be non existent.  How can I ever have the power to deliberately invoke an imaginary scenario if every event in my brain is driven by naturally determined forces over which there is no control?

[Shaker]

Shakes,

My experience is that, rather than understand them, he just dismisses them out of hand as "man-made".

And merely matters of opinion, of course.

It's curious then that he relies on fallacious thinking over and over again when he tries to make arguments for his beliefs – perhaps he thinks that a very bad argument magically becomes a good one because it's him using it or something.

That's the way it looks, yes.