Are we done here?

[Hope]

Sassy,

So, rambling incoherence aside, do you finally have anything to say to the question that's actually being asked? What method would you propose to take you from your subjective opinion about "God" to a fact for the rest of us too without collapsing straight back into the circularity of your standard "the Bible is accurate because God made it so/God exists because the Bible says so" response?

bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc. - in much the same way that it is difficult to use the rules of rugby to referee a football match, or using anthropology to explain geographical issues.

[Shaker]

bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events

Are there any, then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc. - in much the same way that it is difficult to use the rules of rugby to referee a football match, or using anthropology to explain geographical issues.

You have said it before, and you were as wrong then to do so as you are now. First, you want just to assume "supernatural events" to be real (that's called the fallacy of reification by the way) and then attempt to argue that the problem with verifying them is the nature of naturalistic methods.

Your problem though is to establish that these supposed "supernatural events" exist at all, and the burden of proof is with you to establish a means to do so. There are plenty of alternative - and natural - explanations for what you perceive to be the supernatural, and it's for you to demonstrate why your version of events is the correct one.

Second, you attempt a false analogy - no-one disputes that football or "geographical issues" exist, so applying the wrong methods to them doesn't change that. By contrast though, the whole issue here is that you provide no reason of any kind for someone else to think that the supernatural exists, so it remains your job to do so by whatever method you can provide that distinguishes the claim from just a strongly-held opinion.   

 

[Nearly Sane]

bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc. - in much the same way that it is difficult to use the rules of rugby to referee a football match, or using anthropology to explain geographical issues.

oh ffs, no one is asking you to do that - so stop with the straw. You have been asked repeatedly for a methodology to evidence your claims, not been asked to use science. So please provide your method and stop trying to hide your continual evasion on this by lying about what has been said.

[Gordon]

bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc.

So now you can actually tell us what methods you think are applicable to investigating non/supra-naturalistic events: right?

[Bubbles]

I think you have to find something it effects and be able to record X ( what normally happens + X = different outcome.)

Then you have to be able to reproduce it again and again.

You don't need to define X or have an idea of what' it is.

If the supernatural doesn't influence our world/universe in any way, we wouldn't know it exists and the question is irrelevant.

It must touch somewhere, for it to be relevant. ( even if it's just seeing/hearing something)

The only way we could even know about it, is if it does.

Therefore I think if something is there, it should be possible to measure its effects.

It's finding a way of doing it, which might be innovative, but must show X makes a difference to something else.

[Owlswing]

I think you have to find something it effects and be able to record X ( what normally happens + X = different outcome.

Then you have to be able to reproduce it again and again.

You don't need to define X or have an idea of what' it is.

If the supernatural doesn't influence our world/universe in any way, we wouldn't know it exists and the question is irrelevant.

It must touch somewhere, for it to be relevant. ( even if it's just seeing/hearing something)

The only way we could even know about it, is if it does.

Therefore I think if something is there, it should be possible to measure its effects.

It's finding a way of doing it, which might be innovative, but must show X makes a difference to something else.

Oh the Christian God makes a difference, but in the vast majority of cases those to whom it makes the difference cannot agree upon what that difference is. The difference their God makes is usually personal to each of them.

[Sassy]

bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc. - in much the same way that it is difficult to use the rules of rugby to referee a football match, or using anthropology to explain geographical issues.

Who in the right mind would think a deity and the method he chooses to reveal himself can be compared to a human beings way of thinking regarding RULES for a rugby match and a football match.

Start with God and using the rules of Satan and evil being used by man to judge GOD.

You see God told you the way to know him and if he is true.
But it comes right back to your own pride and refusal or you not wanting to know the truth.
If you don't want know the truth and therefore do not do as God tells you to do.
Then you lacking proof and remaining ignorant is simply down to your own choice.
Because you have to want to know God and the truth. If you choose to remain ignorant due to your own pride then no one else can be held accountable. Because God tells you that you have to seek him first.
As you won't do that then no one else is going to do it for you.

As Abraham tells Dives...


26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Even Christ, or someone raising from the dead would persuade you. Because as Dives mind was closed to the truth in life so is yours. And after death it is too late hence the reason people tell you whilst alive that Jesus is the Son of God and his death and resurrection was to save you.

The thing is you have to accept the truth a truth which changes your life and gives you the facts about loving your neighbour as yourself. Had Dives loved Lazarus he would have had mercy on him and provided for him sharing his food and binding his wounds.

Christianity is for people who love God and love Truth so love others. Something you would need to get rid of your pride to understand.

[floo]

(((((Christianity is for people who love God and love Truth so love others. Something you would need to get rid of your pride to understand.)))))

Oh Sass you take the biscuit you really do! You accuse others of not understanding, yet your posts are more often than not muddled to say the least. You seem to take a pride in not seeing the wood from the trees. As for having love for others, your statements give the impression you fall well short of that. You need to take a leaf out of the book of Alan Burns, I will never see religion from his perspective, but I believe him to be a thoroughly decent guy who genuinely does his best to show love to others.

[Hope]

Hope,

You have said it before, and you were as wrong then to do so as you are now. First, you want just to assume "supernatural events" to be real (that's called the fallacy of reification by the way) and then attempt to argue that the problem with verifying them is the nature of naturalistic methods.

I do love the way that you and others use the fancy terms, possibly because they give you that sense of superiority - but as I've already said, you can use the rules of soccer to referee a rugby match, but you'll end up with a wonderful mess of a game.

Your problem though is to establish that these supposed "supernatural events" exist at all, and the burden of proof is with you to establish a means to do so. There are plenty of alternative - and natural - explanations for what you perceive to be the supernatural, and it's for you to demonstrate why your version of events is the correct one.

I've used several examples of events and situations that don't fit the scientific methodology over the months I've been a member of the board, and haven't yet seen an answer that deals with them satisfactorily.  Most of the time the argument from your side of the debate has been opinion, as opposed to concrete evidence, meaning that they are no more valid than anyone else's posts.  I'll just give one example here: the issue of right and wrong.  Science doesn't deal in that aspect of real life (and lest you want to disagree with that, I'm only repeating what many people here and within scientific fields have said); generally, the idea is judged by personal opinion and social custom.

Second, you attempt a false analogy - no-one disputes that football or "geographical issues" exist, so applying the wrong methods to them doesn't change that. By contrast though, the whole issue here is that you provide no reason of any kind for someone else to think that the supernatural exists, so it remains your job to do so by whatever method you can provide that distinguishes the claim from just a strongly-held opinion.

Whereas you dispute that reality goes beyond the sceintific realm, as it were.  Do you have any evidence for that claim.  Remember that this isn't a fallacious argument on my part because I have used said examoples in the past which have yet to be refuted.  You are claiming that aspects of life and reality that go beyond the scientific realm - which include the supernatural - don't really exist.  You now need to provide evidence to that effect.

[Gordon]

I do love the way that you and others use the fancy terms, possibly because they give you that sense of superiority - but as I've already said, you can use the rules of soccer to referee a rugby match, but you'll end up with a wonderful mess of a game.
I've used several examples of events and situations that don't fit the scientific methodology over the months I've been a member of the board, and haven't yet seen an answer that deals with them satisfactorily.  Most of the time the argument from your side of the debate has been opinion, as opposed to concrete evidence, meaning that they are no more valid than anyone else's posts.  I'll just give one example here: the issue of right and wrong.  Science doesn't deal in that aspect of real life (and lest you want to disagree with that, I'm only repeating what many people here and within scientific fields have said); generally, the idea is judged by personal opinion and social custom.
Whereas you dispute that reality goes beyond the sceintific realm, as it were.  Do you have any evidence for that claim.  Remember that this isn't a fallacious argument on my part because I have used said examoples in the past which have yet to be refuted.  You are claiming that aspects of life and reality that go beyond the scientific realm - which include the supernatural - don't really exist.  You now need to provide evidence to that effect.

Wibble, ending in the good old NPF.

[Hope]

Wibble, ending in the good old NPF.

Good to see you evading the question, Gordon.  Perhaps you can now act sensibly and respond to the perfectly valid, non-fallacious point that has been made.  The more you 'wibble', as you call it, the more I (and no doubt some others) are forced to believe that you have no answers.

[Gordon]

Good to see you evading the question, Gordon.  Perhaps you can now act sensibly and respond to the perfectly valid, non-fallacious point that has been made.  The more you 'wibble', as you call it, the more I (and no doubt some others) are forced to believe that you have no answers.

Nope; wibble was an accurate critique of your earlier post, and you've yet to make a point that isn't fallacious. I certainly don't have answers to fallacious question since by definition they don't merit an answer.

Perhaps you might try posing a question that isn't inherently fallacious and doesn't contain an invitation to commit the NPF. I'm not holding my breath though.

[Owlswing]

Good to see you evading the question, Gordon.  Perhaps you can now act sensibly and respond to the perfectly valid, non-fallacious point that has been made.  The more you 'wibble', as you call it, the more I (and no doubt some others) are forced to believe that you have no answers.

Hope

Just about everybody on this Forum is a expert at "evading questions"!

Let'sface it, we learnt how from a Master - YOU!

[Stranger]

Your problem though is to establish that these supposed "supernatural events" exist at all, and the burden of proof is with you to establish a means to do so. There are plenty of alternative - and natural - explanations for what you perceive to be the supernatural, and it's for you to demonstrate why your version of events is the correct one.

I've used several examples of events and situations that don't fit the scientific methodology over the months I've been a member of the board, and haven't yet seen an answer that deals with them satisfactorily.  Most of the time the argument from your side of the debate has been opinion, as opposed to concrete evidence, meaning that they are no more valid than anyone else's posts.  I'll just give one example here: the issue of right and wrong.  Science doesn't deal in that aspect of real life (and lest you want to disagree with that, I'm only repeating what many people here and within scientific fields have said); generally, the idea is judged by personal opinion and social custom.

This is totally irrelevant.

These "events and situations that don't fit the scientific methodology" go no way towards demonstrating the existence of the 'supernatural'. Nobody disputes that your god exists as an opinion in your mind (just like your opinions about right and wrong).

There are some things that are not objectively decidable. You reiterating this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you have no method to distinguish your god claim from guessing.

If you are saying that your god is an objective reality, true for everybody, and that you have a methodology that can demonstrate this, then the fact that some things are not is totally irrelevant. If your god is like a value judgement (for example, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly), then it isn't objectively real and true for everybody - and you can't possibly have an objective methodology to establish that this god exists (because it wouldn't objectively exist).

You seem to think that saying that science can't explain all aspects of life^* (either because they are inherently subjective or because we don't know enough yet), is enough to establish the idea of an objectively real god.

That would be one of the silliest arguments for god I have yet encountered.


^* It should be noted that even the subjective is potentially within the realm of science in the sense that it can examine and seek to explain why we have (for example) a sense of morality. What science doesn't do is detect things like 'rightness' or 'beauty' out in the world, because that isn't where they are - they are in our minds.

[john]

bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc. - in much the same way that it is difficult to use the rules of rugby to referee a football match, or using anthropology to explain geographical issues.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

I do not see your problem here Hope.

Let us just take just one of the claims that you have made here over the years, less forcefully than in the old BBC days it's true but still you make it.

You repeatedly insist that there is some sort of link between healing and faith/prayer.

This should be easy enough to demonstrate. These days all sorts of organisations keep and publish records about patient illnesses and recovery rates. None of them show any such link at all. In fact the only actual scientific research into this in relation to heart patients in America actually showed that patients who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse than others, perhaps because it added extra anxiety to their situation some suggested. One hundred years research into Lourdes Pilgrims seeking cures shows no difference in the spontaneous recovery rates between them and that observed in the general public.

If there were ANY EVIDENCE at all that prayer/faith had a health advantage it would be jumped upon, if for no other reason that it might save money. There is non.

But still you push this outright lie and cover up by saying such things cannot be measured. Yes they can and are. There is no link.

Although prayer and faith might help some feel a bit better in their minds. It makes no difference at all to the actual outcome of the illness.

 Stop deceiving yourself and others.

[Shaker]

Good post, john - you've more patience than I have.

[wigginhall]

Good post as well from Stranger, showing for the nth time that if science cannot describe certain things such as beauty, morality, and so on (itself highly debatable), this does not promote any argument for the supernatural.   It's a busted flush, in other words.   There is no argument for the supernatural, that's it.   That is why we get the usual conglomeration of reversing the burden of proof, negative proof, and other fallacies, which are ways of avoiding the lack of argument for the supernatural, and hence theism.   If I don't have an argument for my position, I might try to fool you by asking for arguments for your position. 

[Enki]

Yes, I'd just like to say that I would align myself wholeheartedly with both john's and Stranger's last posts.

[Hope]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx

I do not see your problem here Hope.

Let us just take just one of the claims that you have made here over the years, less forcefully than in the old BBC days it's true but still you make it.

You repeatedly insist that there is some sort of link between healing and faith/prayer.

Not sure that I posted much on that topic in the 'BBC days'.  I only visited the boards a dozen or so times.

This should be easy enough to demonstrate. These days all sorts of organisations keep and publish records about patient illnesses and recovery rates. None of them show any such link at all.

OK, lets look at that suggestion.  About 2 years ago, one of the members of the church I attend was diagnosed with cancer and given 2 - 4 weeks to live. She was placed on a palliative regime of medication, with no attempt to treat the condition.  At the morning service the next Sunday, the congregation - about 200-225 strong that day - was asked to get into groups of 4 or 5 and to pray for her and a number of other issues that concerned the church (including the global political situation of the time).  Which of your 'all sorts of organisations' would have kept records of that, I wonder.

Not only did the lady concerned have a clean bill of health in a subsequent check-up when she had lived beyond the 2-4 weeks period, but she is still alive and a recent check-up confirmed that she was still clear.  I accept that, as with many conditions, a complete recovery may well be impossible, hence the phrase 'being in remission' or 'recovering' as in conditions such as alcoholism.  That doesn't mean that healing/spontaneous recovery hasn't taken place, especially when 2-4 weeks turns into 2 years and still going strong.

In fact the only actual scientific research into this in relation to heart patients in America actually showed that patients who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse than others, and perhaps because it added extra anxiety to their situation some suggested.

and how do the researchers know whether the people know that they are being prayed for, unless they were hovering around themselves, possibly adding to the stress and tension in the first place?  By the way, 'Some suggested' doesn't sound a particularly reliable phrase in scientific terms.I would suggest that the vast majority of prayer for healing is done without any of the oranisations that you refer to having the slightest clue that its taking place, making any findings thay come up with, open to question.

One hundred years research into Lourdes Pilgrims seeking cures shows no difference in the spontaneous recovery rates between them and that observed in the general public.

But then, 'spontaneous recovery' is no more than a convenient term for scientifically unexplained/inexplicable healings, thus making that statistic somewhat moot.

If there were ANY EVIDENCE at all that prayer/faith had a health advantage it would be jumped upon, if for no other reason that it might save money. There is non.

Perhaps that is why NHS trusts are rushing to do away with their chaplains.

But still you push this outright lie and cover up by saying such things cannot be measured. Yes they can and are. There is no link.

If anyone is lying, it is you because it is you who are catagorical in your claim.  All I have ever done is state that there are scientifically inexplicable 'recoveries/healings' and say that timings and other circumstances suggest that prayer can and does have a positive impact - at least, I have seen enough examples of the combination of prayer and inexplicable healings to suggest that they aren't mere coincidences.

Although prayer and faith might help some feel a bit better in their minds. It makes no difference at all to the actual outcome of the illness.

Again, without far more material than the medical profession is willing to release, this is only an opinion - not a sceintifically proven truth.

Stop deceiving yourself and others.

I'll do that when you stop trying to make opinion out as fact.

By the way, to mirror Shakes thanks in regard to your patience, you are possibly the first person to have laid out an argument that has been so easy to refute.  Others have laid out arguments that are so complex and pretentious as to make any attempt at a rebuttal sound just as pretentious.

[Sebastian Toe]

groups of 4 or 5 and to pray for her and a number of other issues that concerned the church (including the global political situation of the time). 

Was there a favourable outcome regarding the 'global political situation of the time'?

[Hope]

Was there a favourable outcome regarding the 'global political situation of the time'?

Some, but not all - but then, I'm not sure exactly what political topics the 50+ groups prayed for at the time.  If conversations I had regarding the Scottish Referendum that followed a month or two later reflected the views of church members, and they prayed for that, then you could probably answer that topic in the affirmative.

[Gordon]

All I have ever done is state that there are scientifically inexplicable 'recoveries/healings' and say that timings and other circumstances suggest that prayer can and does have a positive impact - at least, I have seen enough examples of the combination of prayer and inexplicable healings to suggest that they aren't mere coincidences.

You can suggest all you like, but what method did you use to exclude both coincidence and your own bias, and also demonstrate any cause and effect between prayer and remission that is statistically significant? I suspect you cant, since you seem woefully uninformed regarding research methodology and statistical analysis (the type of stuff that occupied a large part of my professional career).

Again, without far more material than the medical profession is willing to release, this is only an opinion - not a sceintifically proven truth.

You're right there: the problem being your opinion is no more than ill-informed nonsense of the conspiracy variety. Your credulity is showing, again.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

FFS, I try to give this up but your amateur arse about face reasoning drags me back in.

If anyone is lying, it is you because it is you who are catagorical in your claim.  All I have ever done is state that there are scientifically inexplicable 'recoveries/healings' and say that timings and other circumstances suggest that prayer can and does have a positive impact - at least, I have seen enough examples of the combination of prayer and inexplicable healings to suggest that they aren't mere coincidences.

So what value of p did you arrive at in your analysis? Let's see the raw data and how you calculated it.

Again, without far more material than the medical profession is willing to release, this is only an opinion - not a sceintifically proven truth.

In which case we should accept the null hypothesis (ignoring that science only deals with provisional truths).

The irony of all this though is that after telling us we will only accept evidence that fits a scientific outlook (something, of course, that no one has actually asked) your evidence regarding prayer is exactly one that fits the scientific framework.

You observe that someone is ill. Prayers are said for them. They get better. You formulate a hypothesis that they got better as a results of prayer.

So far no problem.

The problem comes because you are hopeless at science.

You need to show a correlation between healing and prayer (not based on just your experience/opinion). The you need to demonstrate causation. Further to that you need to show that the causation was due to something non-naturalistic.

Good luck with all that. So far 0/10.

[Gordon]

Some, but not all - but then, I'm not sure exactly what political topics the 50+ groups prayed for at the time.  If conversations I had regarding the Scottish Referendum that followed a month or two later reflected the views of church members, and they prayed for that, then you could probably answer that topic in the affirmative.

You really don't understand the basic difference between cause and effect and association, never mind the use of statistical tests, do you!

No wonder you are so prone to using fallacies.