Prayer and power

[RandFan]

Given that possibility (since the inability to prove something to be impossible seems the basis of certain arguments) why is the belief in him any less superstitious than believing in the power of a pile of bones to predict the future or that a rabbit's foot will bring you luck?I think that is Bri's point (I "think", I don't mean to speak for her). The point being that they are all equally not necessarily superstitious. In Bri's world, AIU, superstition and irrationality is simply in the eye of the beholder. If a person believes that frogs cause warts then the object (a frog) can be connected to an event (the growing of warts) by some amorphous thing like magic.

1.) No mechanism for how frogs causing warts need be demonstrated.
2.) No link whatsoever need be demonstrated.

Evidence to the contrary that frogs cause warts or prayer doesn't work is not sufficient to make a belief superstition. But this renders all irrational beliefs rational based simply on the beliefs of those who believe. You just need something that can be logically asserted.

God did it.
Magic did it.
Fairies did it.
Demons did it.
Leprechauns did it.

If you assume that things like magic and fairies exist and can somehow, without explanation, be linked to an event then every thing that is not logically impossible are possible and therefore rational.

[RandFan]

Indeed, they may be right, and they may have good reason to believe so. Then they need but demonstrate that they are right or that they have good reason.

If we look at such a belief in a vacuum then I would agree with your argument. The problem is that we have such a large database of knowledge. This knowledge flies in the face of such beliefs. Someone might believe that they can turn straw into gold but at some point, without evidence, we must conclude that the belief is irrational.

The notion that, we'll, it's only an opinion that the belief is irrational is silly. As Randi is want to say, it's ok to have an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out.

[Bri]

Have you? Have you made it clear whether you even believe the word superstition has any meaning? I guess that if you are trying to say that what is superstitious is a personal judgment that can't be objectively assessed then I would have to say that is complete and utter BS.

Yes, I have made it abundantly clear in several posts that the word has meaning. That the word "superstition" (like the word "evil" but unlike the word "mammal") isn't objective doesn't mean that it has no meaning at all. Yes, the opinion that prayer is superstitious is a personal judgment unless you can show objectively that the prayer is not related to the event believed to be influenced by it.

Belief doesn't make the irrational rational.
To demonstrate that a belief is not superstition the person who holds the belief would have to demonstrate causal link.

If it was one's goal to prove that the belief is not superstition, yes one would have to prove a causal link. Likewise, if it was one's goal to prove that belief is superstition, one would have to prove that there is no causal link. In this case, it would be quite difficult to prove either one.

Absent a causal link the belief is, by definition, superstitious.

In your opinion, yes. By definition, no.


For many this is fine. The link is taken on faith. They don't need to prove a link they only need faith. Again, fine but reasonable people must agree that absent a causal link and with evidence to the contrary the belief is superstitious.

No, at most reasonable people must agree that absent strong evidence of a causal link and with weak evidence to the contrary, the belief cannot be shown to not be superstition. I would personally agree that there is no reason to believe it to not be superstition (nor is there reason to believe that it is necessarily superstition).

-Bri

[Bri]

Then they need but demonstrate that they are right or that they have good reason.

I agree that if it is their goal to convince others that their opinion is correct, they need to demonstrate that they are right or that they have good reason to believe as they do. However, if it is your goal to convince others that their opinion is necessarily wrong, then you need to demonstrate that they are wrong or that you have good reason to believe as you do.

If we look at such a belief in a vacuum then I would agree with your argument. The problem is that we have such a large database of knowledge. This knowledge flies in the face of such beliefs. Someone might believe that they can turn straw into gold but at some point, without evidence, we must conclude that the belief is irrational.

I will admit that unless they could provide some strong evidence of it, it would be my opinion that they are nuts. However, their belief is not necessarily irrational because they may have good reason to hold the belief that they hold. No, I can't imagine what such a reason might be, which is why I would believe them to be nuts unless they presented their reason, but at the same time I cannot say that nobody could possibly have such a reason. Additionally, I'm really not sure that we have such a database of knowledge against beliefs in prayer, particularly those beliefs that don't require all prayers to be granted. Without a doubt, there is no database of knowledge in favor of such beliefs (there is very little evidence either way).

The notion that, we'll, it's only an opinion that the belief is irrational is silly. As Randi is want to say, it's ok to have an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out.

I have always held that I agree with your opinions for the most part. I simply believe that you've overstated the case by implying that your opinions are more than opinions.

-Bri

[Bri]

I think that is Bri's point (I "think", I don't mean to speak for her). The point being that they are all equally not necessarily superstitious.

(emphasis mine) The key term here being "necessarily."

In Bri's world, AIU, superstition and irrationality is simply in the eye of the beholder.

No, I've already said that there are many beliefs that are clearly irrational. For example, when there is strong evidence pointing to one position or the other, it is clearly "more rational" to go with the evidence than against it. When one position is inconsistent, then that position is clearly irrational.

If a person believes that frogs cause warts then the object (a frog) can be connected to an event (the growing of warts) by some amorphous thing like magic.

(emphasis mine) The key term here being "can be" rather than "is."


1.) No mechanism for how frogs causing warts need be demonstrated.
2.) No link whatsoever need be demonstrated.


I am most definitely NOT in agreement here. In order for someone to convince me, they would certainly have to present evidence of a link. Absent such evidence, there is no reason for me to believe that there is such a link. However, I cannot state unconditionally that to hold the opinion that there is such a link is necessarily irrational.

If you assume that things like magic and fairies exist and can somehow, without explanation, be linked to an event then every thing that is not logically impossible are possible and therefore rational.

No, I never claimed that a belief is necessarily rational only because it is possible. I said that it is not necessarily irrational. There is a difference.

-Bri

[RandFan]

That the word "superstition" (like the word "evil" but unlike the word "mammal") isn't objective doesn't mean that it has no meaning at all. Evil is based on community standards. There is no reason to suppose that superstition is reasonably based on community standards.

The Mayans used to sacrifice humans to the gods and by those community standards that was not superstition. However this is the 20th century, it is hoped that sometime in the near future we abandon superstitions and embrace science and reason. This will be difficult if we hold that all opinions about what is and is not rational are equal.

If it was one's goal to prove that the belief is not superstition, yes one would have to prove a causal link. Likewise, if it was one's goal to prove that belief is superstition... Fallacy. By this logic, if one's goal is to demonstrate that there is no Santa Claus then one would have to prove that there is no Santa Claus. Fortunately humans have the means to use both deduction and induction. Absent any evidence that there is no Santa Claus and in the face of evidence to the contrary we can, via induction, reasonably infer that there is no Santa Claus. Using your logic such a conclusion is mere opinion. If you choose to believe that one must prove a negative before one can reasonably conclude that a belief in Santa Claus is necessarily irrational then there is little I can do to change your mind. Such a notion, IMO, is very naive and ignorant of logic and reason.

Dear ED, I don't even know what Century this is. Now who is irrational? It's the 21st.

[RandFan]

No, I've already said that there are many beliefs that are clearly irrational. For example, when there is strong evidence pointing to one position or the other, it is clearly "more rational" to go with the evidence than against it. When one position is inconsistent, then that position is clearly irrational. There IS strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events.

(emphasis mine) The key term here being "can be" rather than "is." "Can be" won't change what is. See my position on Santa Claus. That there "can be" a Santa Claus doesn't mean that there is a Santa Claus and "can be" doesn't mean that it is rational to believe that some guy in a red suit will come down your chimney on Christmas eve.

That is the problem with your logic. Everythign is rational and irrational depending on point of view. Oh I know, NOT NECASSARILY IRRATIONAL. In the end what is the f***ing difference? If I can't say something is irrational then what is the point? If my opinion is as valid as those who believe that elephants can fly and frogs cause warts then what meaning does irrational have? You have rendered it purely subjective. Irrationality in your view is like art. If you think it is art then it is.

I am most definitely NOT in agreement here. In order for someone to convince me, they would certainly have to present evidence of a link. Absent such evidence, there is no reason for me to believe that there is such a link. However, I cannot state unconditionally that to hold the opinion that there is such a link is necessarily irrational. My point is only that one need not demonstrate an absense of a link to conclude that something is necassarily irrational. In your opinion, AIU, one can still be rational and believe in something absent a link. Correct?

A person who believes that frogs causes warts is not necassarily irrational so long as that person believes that the warts are caused via magic because it can't be proven that there is no such thing as magic and you can't prove that such a link doesn't exist.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

No, I never claimed that a belief is necessarily rational only because it is possible. I said that it is not necessarily irrational. There is a difference. Fair enough, I apologize.

If you assume that things like magic and fairies exist and can somehow, without explanation, be linked to an event then everything that is not logically impossible is possible and therefore not necessarily irrational.

It is STILL nonsensical. It is still unreasonable. It is still irrational to believe that frogs cause warts. It is still irrational to believe that reindeer fly and it is still irrational to believe that God asks people to kill for him. By your logic such a person is not necassarily irrational.

[Bri]

No, my point before was when there was "no" evidence, not little evidence.

Can you name a belief for which there is no evidence whatsoever? There is evidence of the existence of God (a lot of it actually). Whether you would find the evidence compelling is another matter, but there is plenty of it.


If it is easy to argue, please present your argument. The conclusion that the possibility exists must necessarily follow from the evidence unless you do one of the two things I mentioned before.

Accepting ONLY the proposition that intelligent life exists here does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of even the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere. The only argument that leads necessarily to the conclusion of the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere (despite the lack of any objective evidence of its existence) is the fact that it's not impossible.

Yes, but in this case we have more evidence to show it is possible than simple word games.

It is without a doubt true that both are possible. Neither can be "more possible" than the other.


Where in the case of God we only have definitions that make the claim impossible to falsify as the only "evidence" supporting the possibility. I don't consider that evidence at all.

The fact that the existence of God and the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system are both unfalsifiable does, in fact, make them both possible.

Who said anything about "true"? I'm talking about whether it is more or less rational to believe in the claim.

In order to determine that one belief is necessarily more or less rational than another, you would have to have some objective means of determining which is more probable. In this case, I don't think you can objectively determine the probability of either except to say that they are both greater than 0% and less than 100%.

No, my exceptions are for cases where there is no evidence.

Again, we have yet to discuss any case where there is no evidence at all.

There's that true word again. We're talking about how rational the opinion is, not whether or not it turns out to be true.

I think you may be misunderstanding my use of the word. I wasn't using it to indicate whether or not something might turn out to be true. It is a fact that it cannot be proven that either God or intelligent life elsewhere are impossible. Therefore, it is true that they are possible.

Empirical evidence is better quality than poor definitions. Making one opinion more rational to hold than the other.

What empirical evidence do you have that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system?

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

Can you name a belief for which there is no evidence whatsoever?
Yes, my belief that there is an invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature that follows me around sometimes. You know once I figure out how to capture the darn thing I'll be famous. I'll just spray paint it and show it to everyone, they'll all be sorry they laughed at me then, won't they? Also, I think it'll make a good pet.

Now, prove this isn't true.

There is evidence of the existence of God (a lot of it actually). Whether you would find the evidence compelling is another matter, but there is plenty of it.
Great, present some of this fabled evidence already. Hopefully, it will as irrefutable as the fact that life existing on Earth shows that life is possible.


Accepting ONLY the proposition that intelligent life exists here does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of even the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere.
Yes it does. There is nothing that separates Earth and this solar system from the rest of the universe. The stuff that makes up this solar system is abundant throughout the universe. The physical laws that exist in this solar system appear to exist throughout the universe. If it is possible here, it is possible throughout the universe, because there is nothing fundamentally different between the two. We have irrefutable evidence that it is possible here, so it logically follows that it is possible throughout the universe. The only way around this is to claim that it is not possible here and life came about through some supernatural event or prove there is a fundamental difference between this solar system and the rest of the universe.

The only argument that leads necessarily to the conclusion of the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere (despite the lack of any objective evidence of its existence) is the fact that it's not impossible.
What does this mean? So by this argument, it is just as rational to believe my horseshoe-crab-like creature exists as it is to believe that God exists? Glad we agree, was starting to actually believe some of the people that said I was crazy.

It is without a doubt true that both are possible. Neither can be "more possible" than the other.
No, but one can be more rational than the other based on the available evidence.


The fact that the existence of God and the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system are both unfalsifiable does, in fact, make them both possible.
They are not both unfalsifiable in the same way. The existence of life elsewhere in the universe is unfalsifiable claim only by practical limitations. Theoretically, we could search every star and planet in the universe, and after finding nothing, know for a fact life elsewhere does not exit. Doing the same will not prove God does not exist. It seems by the very definition of God, there is no possible way of proving God does not exist.


In order to determine that one belief is necessarily more or less rational than another, you would have to have some objective means of determining which is more probable. In this case, I don't think you can objectively determine the probability of either except to say that they are both greater than 0% and less than 100%.
The probability is not the only way to determine which is a more rational option. You can also use the quality of evidence used to support that the possibility actually exists to determine which is more rational. In the case of life elsewhere, we have evidence that life is possible and logic to say that if it is possible here that it must be possible elsewhere (see above). In the case of God existing, we only have a definition that makes it impossible to falsify the claim, like that irritating horseshoe-crab-like creature. I think I should name him, his description is kind of long to write.


Again, we have yet to discuss any case where there is no evidence at all.
See above.


I think you may be misunderstanding my use of the word. I wasn't using it to indicate whether or not something might turn out to be true. It is a fact that it cannot be proven that either God or intelligent life elsewhere are impossible. Therefore, it is true that they are possible.
Both possible, yes. Equally rational, no.


What empirical evidence do you have that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system?

-Bri
Who claimed that? I said we have empirical evidence to show life is possible, and logical reasons to believe that what is possible in this solar system is possible throughout the universe.

[Katana]

Can you name a belief for which there is no evidence whatsoever? There is evidence of the existence of God (a lot of it actually). Whether you would find the evidence compelling is another matter, but there is plenty of it.
Yes, I'm curious about this evidence, too. I'm going to assume that it's not based on Bible passages or tales of the miraculous passed from person to person. So what is your evidence of the existence of God?

[slingblade]

I just broke a mirror while trying to avoid a black cat which caused me to walk under a ladder. I was so upset, I forgot to close my umbrella before I entered the house, and accidentally carried a shovel indoors with me.

Should I be worried?

[Bri]

Yes, I'm curious about this evidence, too. I'm going to assume that it's not based on Bible passages or tales of the miraculous passed from person to person. So what is your evidence of the existence of God?

Of course it is. Like I said, you may not find such evidence compelling, but it is evidence, and there is plenty of it. Christians seem to find it quite compelling.

-Bri

[Bri]

Fallacy. By this logic, if one's goal is to demonstrate that there is no Santa Claus then one would have to prove that there is no Santa Claus.

I would expect that if one's goal is to prove that there is no Santa Claus then one would have to prove that there is no Santa Claus! That seems fairly obvious to me.

Fortunately humans have the means to use both deduction and induction. Absent any evidence that there is no Santa Claus and in the face of evidence to the contrary we can, via induction, reasonably infer that there is no Santa Claus. Using your logic such a conclusion is mere opinion. If you choose to believe that one must prove a negative before one can reasonably conclude that a belief in Santa Claus is necessarily irrational then there is little I can do to change your mind. Such a notion, IMO, is very naive and ignorant of logic and reason.

If you're talking about the version of Santa Claus generally believed by children to climb down chimneys, there is much evidence against it. I can't say that I could prove that some beliefs in Santa Claus are necessarily irrational though. No, the word "necessarily" makes it naive and ignorant of logic and reason (not to mention unimaginative) to assume that no belief in Santa Claus could possibly be rational. Wikipedia apparently believes in Santa Claus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas):

Saint Nicholas is the common name for Saint Nicholas of Myra, who had a reputation for secret gift-giving, but is now commonly known as Santa Claus.

Oh, but I forgot. To believe in Santa Claus is necessarily irrational.

-Bri

[Bri]

There IS strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events.

There is strong evidence that prayer doesn't influence ALL events. There is no evidence that prayer doesn't influence ANY events.

"Can be" won't change what is. See my position on Santa Claus. That there "can be" a Santa Claus doesn't mean that there is a Santa Claus and "can be" doesn't mean that it is rational to believe that some guy in a red suit will come down your chimney on Christmas eve.

Again, you are misrepresenting my position. I never said that there is a Santa Claus. I also never said that it is necessarily rational to believe that some guy in a red suit will come down your chimney on Christmas eve.

That is the problem with your logic. Everythign is rational and irrational depending on point of view. Oh I know, NOT NECASSARILY IRRATIONAL. In the end what is the f***ing difference? If I can't say something is irrational then what is the point? If my opinion is as valid as those who believe that elephants can fly and frogs cause warts then what meaning does irrational have? You have rendered it purely subjective. Irrationality in your view is like art. If you think it is art then it is.

I have always maintained that you're overstating your case when you make a statement such as "Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational" and insist that it is fact rather than opinion. I'm sorry, but it is clearly an opinion. Some opinions are indeed backed up by evidence, but they are still opinion rather than fact. To state them as absolute fact is irrational.

My point is only that one need not demonstrate an absense of a link to conclude that something is necassarily irrational. In your opinion, AIU, one can still be rational and believe in something absent a link. Correct?

It is certainly possible, yes. In fact, scientists do it all the time by carefully observing correlations between events. There can be a correlation even if we don't know the link. Of course, we prefer to know "why" but if there is a correlation, we don't generally deny it just because we don't know why. So, yes, if you wanted to prove that there is no correlation, you would have to demonstrate an absence of a link.

A person who believes that frogs causes warts is not necassarily irrational so long as that person believes that the warts are caused via magic because it can't be proven that there is no such thing as magic and you can't prove that such a link doesn't exist.

Well, that would depend on the belief, but it seems to me that this particular belief is easily falsifiable.

If you assume that things like magic and fairies exist and can somehow, without explanation, be linked to an event then everything that is not logically impossible is possible and therefore not necessarily irrational.

Again, most assumptions that things like magic and faeries are probably irrational in my opinion, but all are not necessarily so.

It is STILL nonsensical. It is still unreasonable. It is still irrational to believe that frogs cause warts. It is still irrational to believe that reindeer fly and it is still irrational to believe that God asks people to kill for him. By your logic such a person is not necassarily irrational.

Probably irrational (in my opinion) but not necessarily so.

-Bri

[RandFan]

I just broke a mirror while trying to avoid a black cat which caused me to walk under a ladder. I was so upset, I forgot to close my umbrella before I entered the house, and accidentally carried a shovel indoors with me.

Should I be worried?If you are irrational, yes.

[RandFan]

I would expect that if one's goal is to prove that there is no Santa Claus then one would have to prove that there is no Santa Claus! That seems fairly obvious to me. And you would do that by....?

If you're talking about the version of Santa Claus generally believed by children to climb down chimneys, there is much evidence against it. As there is against prayer but there is no direct evidence against either.

James Randi has a great bit on this. He breaks it down to proving that Reindeer can't fly. You take 100 reindeer to the top of a roof and start throwing them off. After 100 reindeer splat on the ground you still have not proven that reindeer can't fly. You have only proven that those 100 reindeer can't fly.

Flying reindeer and prayer fall in the same category. It is irrational to believe in both because as humans with the capacity for logic and reason we can utilize induction to come to a conclusion as to both.

Pretty neat, don't you think?

[RandFan]

There is strong evidence that prayer doesn't influence ALL events. There is no evidence that prayer doesn't influence ANY events. Common fallacy. See Randi's reindeer example above. Remember, humans are capable of both induction and deduction. I don't have to really agonize over where the snow came from that is on the lawn in the morning when I wake up that wasn't there when I went to sleep. I can't prove that it snowed the night before but I can infer that it did. Your argument says that it is not necassarily irrational to believe that the snow was put there by aliens because I can't prove that it snowed.

This is really a serious error on your part Bri and you continue to persist in it which is rather frustrating.

Again, you are misrepresenting my position. I never said that there is a Santa Claus. I also never said that it is necessarily rational to believe that some guy in a red suit will come down your chimney on Christmas eve. Yes, we know, it isn't necessarily rational and it isn't necessarily irrational. That's just equivocation. If I say it isn't rational you jump up with the point that it isn't necessarily irrational which really tells us nothing. You might as well point out that the real world doesn't exist because we can't prove that it does and therefore we should qualify all existential statements. While it is true that we can't prove the existence of the real world the notion that we have to go around saying that existence isn't necessarily real is as much BS as is declaring that what is otherwise irrational isn't necessarily irrational.

I have always maintained that you're overstating your case when you make a statement such as "Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational"... Belief in prayer is irrational. No more, no less.

I'm sorry, but it is clearly an opinion. It is as much as an opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow.
That the real world exists.
That when I go outside in the morning and the sky is clear and there is snow on the ground that it snowed while I was sleeping.
That I had a great grandfather.

Some opinions are indeed backed up by evidence, but they are still opinion rather than fact. All positions and beliefs are opinions.

To state them as absolute fact is irrational. I have told you time and time again, I hold no such absolutes. Absolute truth is antithetical to science, logic and reason. Keep an open mind, just don't let your brains fall out.

It is certainly possible, yes. In fact, scientists do it all the time by carefully observing correlations between events. There can be a correlation even if we don't know the link. Of course, we prefer to know "why" but if there is a correlation, we don't generally deny it just because we don't know why. So, yes, if you wanted to prove that there is no correlation, you would have to demonstrate an absence of a link. There must be "reason" to believe. It could be empirical evidence or a logical cause and effect, statistical evidence, something beyond a need or want to believe. Absent any evidence and lacking a connection it is then irrational.

Well, that would depend on the belief, but it seems to me that this particular belief is easily falsifiable. How? Can you test every example of warts. See, this is your problem, warts and frogs are virtually the same as prayer. No one claims that frogs cause warts every time. Only that there is a link. So unless you can prove that it never works then using your logic it is not necessarily irrational.

Again, most assumptions that things like magic and faeries are probably irrational in my opinion, but all are not necessarily so. In the face of evidence to the contrary and lacking any known link or mechanism they are irrational. But you are free to demonstrate that any of them are in fact rational.

Probably irrational (in my opinion) but not necessarily so.
Could such a person be committed to a mental ward to protect society?

[Bri]

Yes, my belief that there is an invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature that follows me around sometimes. You know once I figure out how to capture the darn thing I'll be famous. I'll just spray paint it and show it to everyone, they'll all be sorry they laughed at me then, won't they? Also, I think it'll make a good pet.

Now, prove this isn't true.

I can't. It could be true. Although I doubt it, your belief in this creature might actually be rational. Personally, I would recommend professional help though.


Great, present some of this fabled evidence already. Hopefully, it will as irrefutable as the fact that life existing on Earth shows that life is possible.

Where in "There is evidence of the existence of God" do you read the word "irrefutable?" I never said there was irrefutable evidence of God's existence. I previously said that there is irrefutable evidence of the possibility of God's existence -- just as irrefutable as evidence of the possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere.


Yes it does. There is nothing that separates Earth and this solar system from the rest of the universe. The stuff that makes up this solar system is abundant throughout the universe. The physical laws that exist in this solar system appear to exist throughout the universe. If it is possible here, it is possible throughout the universe, because there is nothing fundamentally different between the two.

If you have irrefutable evidence that the conditions necessary for the emergence of intelligent life are not unique to Earth, please present it.

We have irrefutable evidence that it is possible here, so it logically follows that it is possible throughout the universe.

We have irrefutable evidence that it EXISTS here, so are you saying that it logically follows that it EXISTS throughout the universe? No, the reason it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere is because it's not impossible.

What does this mean? So by this argument, it is just as rational to believe my horseshoe-crab-like creature exists as it is to believe that God exists? Glad we agree, was starting to actually believe some of the people that said I was crazy.

I don't claim to know for certain whether one is or isn't more rational than the other. I simply said that neither are necessarily irrational. In the case of intelligent life elsewhere and God, I'm not sure how you would demonstrate that one is necessarily more rational than the other, but I'd certainly like to hear it. Otherwise, I think you'd be overstating things to say that one is necessarily more rational than the other.


No, but one can be more rational than the other based on the available evidence.

Yes, it's possible. Again, if you're asserting that it is necessarily so, you'd have to demonstrate it. Can you?

They are not both unfalsifiable in the same way.

Unfalsifiable means that it cannot be proven false. I didn't consider that there might be "ways" of being unfalsifiable, but I'm willing to hear you out on this.

The existence of life elsewhere in the universe is unfalsifiable claim only by practical limitations. Theoretically, we could search every star and planet in the universe, and after finding nothing, know for a fact life elsewhere does not exit. Doing the same will not prove God does not exist. It seems by the very definition of God, there is no possible way of proving God does not exist.

We would have to know exactly what to search for in order to assure that we know for a fact that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere. In fact, if an intelligent being didn't want us to know of its existence, it could either "play dumb" (prevent us from recognizing its intelligence) or hide from us. If intelligent beings didn't want to be found, it is possible that we might never be able to find them. Even if they did want to be found, it is possible that we couldn't communicate with them and would fail to recognize their intelligence.

Like intelligent life, it might require God's cooperation to acquire proof of his existence. However, once we had his cooperation, there is no chance that we wouldn't recognize his existence given that he is omniscient and could ensure it.


The probability is not the only way to determine which is a more rational option. You can also use the quality of evidence used to support that the possibility actually exists to determine which is more rational.

Perhaps you could use quality of evidence to determine rationality, although quality of evidence is rarely objective. I doubt you could provide an objective analysis of the evidence of either in this case, especially considering that there is little to no evidence to consider.

In the case of life elsewhere, we have evidence that life is possible and logic to say that if it is possible here that it must be possible elsewhere (see above).

Agreed.

In the case of God existing, we only have a definition that makes it impossible to falsify the claim, like that irritating horseshoe-crab-like creature. I think I should name him, his description is kind of long to write.

How about IHCC? Oddly, IHCC, God, and intelligent life outside of the solar system are all entirely possible.

Both possible, yes. Equally rational, no.

Again, you might be right about that, but can you show that one is necessarily more rational than the other? If not, then to say something like "one is necessarily more rational than the other" would be an inaccurate statement, wouldn't it?

Who claimed that? I said we have empirical evidence to show life is possible, and logical reasons to believe that what is possible in this solar system is possible throughout the universe.

You said "Empirical evidence is better quality than poor definitions. Making one opinion more rational to hold than the other." I assumed you mean that you have empirical evidence of intelligent life existing outside of the solar system since that was the topic of the discussion. If you meant that there is empirical evidence to show that intelligent life existing outside of the solar system is possible, that was never in question. Of course it is 100% possible (with or without empirical evidence). So is the existence of God.

-Bri

[Bri]

Common fallacy. See Randi's reindeer example above. Remember, humans are capable of both induction and deduction. I don't have to really agonize over where the snow came from that is on the lawn in the morning when I wake up that wasn't there when I went to sleep. I can't prove that it snowed the night before but I can infer that it did.

Of course you can infer it, and I never said otherwise. Please stop putting words in my mouth and then crying fallacy.

Your argument says that it is rational to believe that the snow was put there by aliens because I can't prove that it snowed.

Again, no. My argument says that it's not necessarily irrational to believe that the snow was put there by aliens. Of course, you'd have to provide a pretty good reason for your belief if you wanted to convince me of it, but since it's possible that you do have good reason, I can't say that your belief is necessarily irrational.

This is really a serious error on your part Bri and you continue to persist in it which is rather frustrating.

The more serious error is to insert fallacies into my argument and then claim that I did it. I have to admit that it is getting a little annoying.

-Bri

[RandFan]

Of course you can infer it, and I never said otherwise. Please stop putting words in my mouth and then crying fallacy. I cry fallacy because it is fallacy. You said: There is no evidence that prayer doesn't influence ANY events. That has no bearing on whether the belief is rational.

Again, no. My argument says that it's not necessarily irrational to believe that the snow was put there by aliens. Yes, it is. In the face of all of the evidence to the contrary it is irrational to hold such a belief.

Of course, you'd have to provide a pretty good reason for your belief if you wanted to convince me of it, but since it's possible that you do have good reason, I can't say that your belief is necessarily irrational. This is just silly. All evidence tells us that snow on the ground is put there because of natural climate conditions. It is by default wrong and irrational to suppose that the snow was put there by aliens.

If someone has evidence that snow was put there by aliens then the impetus is on them to prove such an extraordinary claim.

The more serious error is to insert fallacies into my argument and then claim that I did it. I have to admit that it is getting a little annoying.
Then stop committing them. All propositions that are considered true are held provisionally. We don't hold propositions as correct as also not necessarily correct because they could be false.

By your logic we should put disclaimers in text books, !!!WARNING all things in this book could be false therefore they are not necessarily true.

Don't you see how silly that is?

No, we simply hold propositions as true if the evidence, reason and logic support those propositions and until evidence to the contrary can be presented.

[KelvinG]

I can't. It could be true. Although I doubt it, your belief in this creature might actually be rational. Personally, I would recommend professional help though.


Why do you assume that someone who believes in the existence of a "invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature" is in need of professional help while someone who believes in God is not?
At least I assume that's what you believe.

[I less than three logic]

If you meant that there is empirical evidence to show that intelligent life existing outside of the solar system is possible, that was never in question. Of course it is 100% possible (with or without empirical evidence). So is the existence of God.

-Bri
Here is the crux of the argument. Yes, both are possible with or without empirical evidence, but it is more rational to believe one with empirical evidence to show it is possible than one without empirical evidence.

This will be my last post on this subject. It is necessarily irrational to continue this conversation.

[RandFan]

Of course it is 100% possible (with or without empirical evidence). So is the existence of God. I don't think you know what 100% possible means. To say that there is a 100% possibility of something is to say that it is true not that it absolutely could be true which is a nonsensical statement. 100% possibility of rain means that it will rain not that it could rain.

[Bri]

I cry fallacy because it is fallacy. You said: There is no evidence that prayer doesn't influence ANY events.That has no bearing on whether the belief is rational.

My comment was a correction of your fallacy:


There IS strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events.

There is strong evidence that prayer doesn't influence ALL events. There is no evidence that prayer doesn't influence ANY events.


I'm sorry, but there is no strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events. There's no evidence of it at all. It's unfalsifiable. Now, whether it has any bearing on whether the belief is irrational or not, I don't know. You're the one that brought it up, so I was hoping that you could show the relevance to the conversation.

Yes, it is. In the face of all of the evidence to the contrary it is irrational to hold such a belief.

Perhaps, but I doubt you can prove it to be a fact. In other words, it is not necessarily irrational to hold such a belief. I have no problem with your expressing an opinion that you think it irrational. The only problem I have is when you imply that your opinion is fact. It's not fact.

This is just silly. All evidence tells us that snow on the ground is put there because of natural climate conditions. It is by default wrong and irrational to suppose that the snow was put there by aliens.

Under most circumstances I would agree with you. However, I cannot say that it would necessarily be the case under any and all circumstances. It is possible that someone has good reason to believe the snow was put there by aliens. Although the chances are great that such a belief is irrational, it is not necessarily irrational.

If someone has evidence that snow was put there by aliens then the impetus is on them to prove such an extraordinary claim.

I completely agree. And I never said otherwise. However, to say that their claim is necessarily irrational is to assume that they don't have any such evidence.

Then stop committing them. All propositions that are considered true are held provisionally. We don't hold propositions as correct as also not necessarily correct because they could be false.

I'm sorry, but that's just another way of saying that it's your opinion rather than fact. Unfortunately, when you use the words "necessarily irrational" or state outright that it's not just opinion, you are stating a fact, contradicting your statement that all propositions are held provisionally. If they were in fact held provisionally, then you wouldn't argue that they're fact.

By your logic we should put disclaimers in text books, !!!WARNING all things in this book could be false therefore they are not necessarily true.

Don't you see how silly that is?

Yes, it would be if that was a valid conclusion to my logic. It's not. Most textbooks are careful not to state opinions as facts. For example, I've never seen a textbook state that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational.

No, we simply hold propositions as true if the evidence, reason and logic support those propositions and until evidence to the contrary can be presented.

Except in cases where you happen to agree with the proposition, such as intelligent life existing elsewhere in our galaxy and others you've mentioned previously in this thread.

-Bri

[Bri]

Why do you assume that someone who believes in the existence of a "invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature" is in need of professional help while someone who believes in God is not?
At least I assume that's what you believe.

I think your assumption of what I believe is probably mistaken in this case.

-Bri

[Bri]

I don't think you know what 100% possible means. To say that there is a 100% possibility of something is to say that it is true not that it absolutely could be true which is a nonsensical statement.

I said that a proposition is either possible or impossible. One proposition cannot be "more possible" than another proposition, as "I less than three logic" seemed to imply. So, yes, the statement "it is possible that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" is a true statement.

Note that I did NOT say (nor have I ever said) that the probability that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system is 100%. The statement "it is possible that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" would indicate that the probability that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is greater than 0%.

100% possibility of rain means that it will rain not that it could rain.

No, 100% probability of rain or 100% chance of rain means that it will rain.

A possibility of rain means that it could rain.

100% possibility of rain is actually redundant. I used it to make a point, but it does not mean that it will rain (which would be "100% probability").

-Bri

[RandFan]

So, yes, the proposition "it is possible that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" is 100% true. This is pure and utter nonsense. You have no idea what you are even talking about. Give me an example of something that isn't 100% "true" as it relates to the possibility of something or give me somthing that isn't 100% "possible" (I'm guessing that like the other examples I have asked for you will ignore this one so just understand that your refusal to provide an example will mean far more than any convoluted explanation.)

Given your usage of the word something is either possible or it is not possible. There is no 50% possible.

bartleby.com (http://www.bartleby.com/68/99/4699.html)
Something possible can conceivably occur; something probable very likely will occur. Possible is sometimes considered an absolute adjective. If we assume that "possible" is an absolute adjective then you are being, at best, redundant and at worst tautological. Of course we will have to wait for your example of a <100% possible occurrence, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[Bri]

Given your usage of the word something is either possible or it is not possible. There is no 50% possible.

Yes, true. It would be incorrect to say that intelligent life elsewhere is "50% possible." The term would be "50% probability" or "50% chance" as in "the probability of intelligent life elsewhere is 50%."

If we assume that "possible" is an absolute adjective then you are being, at best, redundant and at worst tautological. Of course we will have to wait for your example of a <100% possible occurrence, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

Yes, I was being redundant to make a point that if two things are possible, one cannot be more possible than the other (they are both 100% possible). There is no such thing as a <100% possible occurrence. That was my point.

-Bri

[RandFan]

My comment was a correction of your fallacy: Sorry, no.

There IS strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events. The qualifier is not necessary. Otherwise textbooks would be riddled with such qualifications.

I'm sorry, but there is no strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events. There's lots. Every study fails to find any correlation.

Perhaps, but I doubt you can prove it to be a fact. I can't prove anything absolutely. To go around in this life qualifying everything is silly and a big waste of time.

The only problem I have is when you imply that your opinion is fact. So if I state that the sun will rise tomorrow will you argue with me because I did not state that it is simply my opinion? That's just silly.

Under most circumstances I would agree with you. However, I cannot say that it would necessarily be the case under any and all circumstances. It is possible that someone has good reason to believe the snow was put there by aliens. Although the chances are great that such a belief is irrational, it is not necessarily irrational. NOTHING IS NECESSARILY TRUE!!!!!

So what? We have to qualify every statement with the modifier that this is just opinion? Are you suggesting that school textbooks be re-written to declare all propositions counter to the propositions we hold as true are not necessarily false? Come on, you can't really believe this?

I completely agree. And I never said otherwise. However, to say that their claim is necessarily irrational is to assume that they don't have any such evidence. Therefore every claim counter to our understanding of the laws of physics is not necessarily true and scientists, educators, etc., can't make statements as to the validity of arguments or the truthfulness of a proposition without a qualifier that these are all just opinions?

I'm sorry, but that's just another way of saying that it's your opinion rather than fact. That the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow is an opinion.
That I necessarily had a grandfather is just an opinion.
That the real world necessarily exists is just an opinion.

There are no absolute facts. There are only probabilities and certainties. Science holds no absolutes.

Unfortunately, when you use the words "necessarily irrational" or state outright that it's not just opinion, you are stating a fact, contradicting your statement that all propositions are held provisionally. 2+2=4 is not necessarily true. E=MC2 is not necessarily true. Gravity is not necessarily true.

RandFan
All propositions that are considered true are held provisionally. We don't hold propositions as correct as also not necessarily correct because they could be false.

Bri
I'm sorry, but that's just another way of saying that it's your opinion rather than fact. Wow, so, facts are out. We can only express opinions.

Does this mean that you believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in public school science classes? Do you think educators should always inform their students that since all propositions are considered true and are held provisional then it is all just opinion?

If they were in fact held provisionally, then you wouldn't argue that they're fact.Oops... sorry Bri, remember, there is no such thing as facts. You will need to find a different word. However, in the other hand, you could continue to use the word if you would embrace the scientific use of the word.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Got that? That's it Bri, all in a nutshell. That we only hold truths as provisional doesn't mean that all truths are mere opinion. You are fighting the same fight the ID proponents are fighting. I'm curious, are you an ID proponent? This isn't meant as an ad hominem but it would go along way to understanding your misconceptions of science and truth.

Yes, it would be if that was a valid conclusion to my logic. It's not. Most textbooks are careful not to state opinions as facts. You simply haven't a clue.

Except in cases where you happen to agree with the proposition, such as intelligent life existing elsewhere in our galaxy and others you've mentioned previously in this thread. (see induction, logic, reason and inference).

[RandFan]

Yes, I was being redundant to make a point that if two things are possible, one cannot be more possible than the other (they are both 100% possible). There is no such thing as a <100% possible occurrence. That was my point. I agree and will modify my use of the word "possible". Possible is that which is logically possible.

That said, there is a huge difference between the probability of the existence of inteligent life outside of our solar system given the sheer number of galxies and stars. We know what is required for life. We have a pretty good understanding of the distribution of elements in the universe. We have good reason and can use induction to infer the likelyhood of inteligent life on other planets.

We know that there is one planet that has inteligent life and we know the conditions necassary for that life. For science it isn't a matter of faith that leads them to conclude that inteliegent life exists beyond our solar system, it is our understanding of statistics and the known natural world.

For God we got zip, nothing, nada. At best theologists have faith and a possibility.

:rolleyes: I get that you can't see the difference but I assure you that scientists and others trained to think critically and who understand logic and reason see a huge difference.

Many of us have tried to demonstrate the difference to you but we can't make you understand what you won't consider.

[Bri]

I can't prove anything absolutely. To go around in this life qualifying everything is silly and a big waste of time.

You keep walking both sides of the fence when pressed to explain what I felt was a vague statement. At one point you claimed that your statement "belief in prayer is irrational" was absolute fact, as in "belief in prayer is necessarily irrational." At another point you claimed that your statement "belief in prayer is irrational" was not absolute fact, as in "belief in prayer is provisionally irrational." What I don't understand is how it can be both. It's either necessarily irrational (which means that it cannot possibly be rational) or it's provisionally irrational (which means that it can possibly be rational).

So if I state that the sun will rise tomorrow will you argue with me because I did not state that it is simply my opinion? That's just silly.

However, the sun rising tomorrow is notably a straw man since there is strong evidence that it will. Still, if you say that the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow, then you're simply wrong. If you say that there is strong evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, then you're correct.

NOTHING IS NECESSARILY TRUE!!!!!

Exactly, so how can you claim that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational?

So what? We have to qualify every statement with the modifier that this is just opinion? Are you suggesting that school textbooks be re-written to declare all propositions counter to the propositions we hold as true are not necessarily false? Come on, you can't really believe this?

I don't believe that most textbooks should be rewritten, nor did I imply it, nor is it a necessary consequence of what I actually did say. What I said is that in the case of something for which there is no strong evidence either way, if you use the word "necessarily" in order state an opinion about it as an absolute fact, then you are simply overstating your case. That's why textbooks don't generally use the word "necessarily" in that context.

Therefore every claim counter to our understanding of the laws of physics is not necessarily true and scientists, educators, etc., can't make statements as to the validity of arguments or the truthfulness of a proposition without a qualifier that these are all just opinions?

That the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow is an opinion.
That I necessarily had a grandfather is just an opinion.
That the real world necessarily exists is just an opinion.

There are no absolute facts. There are only probabilities and certainties. Science holds no absolutes.

2+2=4 is not necessarily true. E=MC2 is not necessarily true. Gravity is not necessarily true.

Wow, so, facts are out. We can only express opinions.

None of this has a thing to do with what I actually said.

Does this mean that you believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in public school science classes? Do you think educators should always inform their students that since all propositions are considered true and are held provisional then it is all just opinion?

Again, nothing to do with what I actually said.

Oops... sorry Bri, remember, there is no such thing as facts. You will need to find a different word. However, in the other hand, you could continue to use the word if you would embrace the scientific use of the word.

Scientists rarely use the word "necessarily" unless they mean to imply absolute fact. Therefore, the term is usually only used in logic in this context.

Got that? That's it Bri, all in a nutshell. That we only hold truths as provisional doesn't mean that all truths are mere opinion. You are fighting the same fight the ID proponents are fighting. I'm curious, are you an ID proponent? This isn't meant as an ad hominem but it would go along way to understanding your misconceptions of science and truth.

No, I'm not an ID proponent, and it's clear that you did mean it as an ad hom since it would be impossible to come to that conclusion based on what I actually said rather than what you wish I had said.

-Bri

[Bri]

I agree and will modify my use of the word "possible". Possible is that which is logically possible.

That said, there is a huge difference between the probability of the existence of inteligent life outside of our solar system given the sheer number of galxies and stars. We know what is required for life. We have a pretty good understanding of the distribution of elements in the universe. We have good reason and can use induction to infer the likelyhood of inteligent life on other planets.

We know that there is one planet that has inteligent life and we know the conditions necassary for that life. For science it isn't a matter of faith that leads them to conclude that inteliegent life exists beyond our solar system, it is our understanding of statistics and the known natural world.

Actually, we have no idea what conditions give rise to intelligent life, nor how specific those conditions are to the exact conditions on earth. We have no good reason to infer any particular probability of intelligent life elsewhere, and any probability that you assign would be non-objective. There is simply no objective evidence that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system.

Nonetheless, you may have reason to state that "it is more likely that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system than it is that prayer works." But as soon as you insert the word "necessarily" into that sentence, it becomes false. That's all I'm saying.

For God we got zip, nothing, nada. At best theologists have faith and a possibility.

That's true. There is little evidence that God exists or that prayer works. There is also little evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere.

:rolleyes: I get that you can't see the difference but I assure you that scientists and others trained to think critically and who understand logic and reason see a huge difference.

Many of us have tried to demonstrate the difference to you but we can't make you understand what you won't consider.

I believe I do understand the difference, but it's not an objective difference for which you can say that one belief is necessarily more rational than the other.

-Bri

[RandFan]

You keep walking both sides of the fence when pressed to explain what I felt was a vague statement. At one point you claimed that your statement "belief in prayer is irrational" was absolute fact... ? Cite please. I have been quite consistent in my statements.

However, the sun rising tomorrow is notably a straw man since there is strong evidence that it will. Still, if you say that the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow, then you're simply wrong. If you say that there is strong evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, then you're correct. I don't think I ever used the term "necessarily" but I have no problem using it. Your argument is silly.

Exactly, so how can you claim that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational? I don't think that was my statement but I don't really care. I only claim that it IS irrational. As I claim the sun will rise tomorrow. As I claim that I have a grandfather. I have no direct evidence that I have a grandfather but I am quite confident that I do as I am confident that prayer is irrational and the sun will rise tomorrow.

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." It would be perverse for me to withhold provisional consent. I have always said that I hold provisional consent.

I don't believe that most textbooks should be rewritten, nor did I imply it, nor is it a necessary consequence of what I actually did say. It is the only consequence.

What I said is that in the case of something for which there is no strong evidence either way... That's the problem, there is lots and lots of evidence.

...if you use the word "necessarily"...Not my word but I don't object.

None of this has a thing to do with what I actually said.Yes it does.

RandFan
All propositions that are considered true are held provisionally. We don't hold propositions as correct as also not necessarily correct because they could be false.

Bri
I'm sorry, but that's just another way of saying that it's your opinion rather than fact. It has exactly to do with what you said.

Again, nothing to do with what I actually said. Again, yes, see above.

Scientists rarely use the word "necessarily" unless they mean to imply absolute fact. Therefore, the term is usually only used in logic in this context. {sigh} How many times must I tell you that science does not view the world that way?

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. It would sure be nice if you could figure this out.

[RandFan]

Nonetheless, you may have reason to state that "it is more likely that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system than it is that prayer works." But as soon as you insert the word "necessarily" into that sentence, it becomes false. That's all I'm saying. All I'm saying, all I have ever said is that prayer is irrational. I stand by that statement.

That's true. There is little evidence that God exists or that prayer works. There is also little evidence that intelligent life exists elsewhere.Then you are simply not paying attention. Scientists have reason to believe that that intelligent life exists elsewhere. Science has no reason to believe that god exists. If you can sit there and deny all of the evidence and reason provided then there is little we can do.

I believe I do understand the difference, but it's not an objective difference for which you can say that one belief is necessarily more rational than the other. Yes, there are objective criteria. You just refuse to acknowledger what those criteria are. You have reduced everything between deductive and non-deductive. There is not always direct evidence I keep telling you. You forget the inductive.

[RandFan]

Bri, please look up the definition of strawman.

[KelvinG]

I think your assumption of what I believe is probably mistaken in this case.

-Bri

Alright, then help me out then.

Do you think that someone who believes in the existence of a "invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature" is in need of professional help while someone who believes in God is not?

It would seem to me that the existence of the invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature is no less provable than the existence of God.

[SirPhilip]

Alright, then help me out then. Do you think that someone who believes in the existence of a "invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature" is in need of professional help while someone who believes in God is not? I can't speak for him, but someone who thinks whoever believes in God must be talking about the same kind "people" like Jan Crouch and Pat Robertson are is deliberately trying to be offensive or seriously needs to take a philosophy class.

[Bri]

I don't think I ever used the term "necessarily" but I have no problem using it. Your argument is silly.

When I have more time, I'll go back through the thread. You've indicated that your statement was not opinion, and you've also confirmed it when I've asked if you really meant that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. If you don't believe that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational and you don't believe that your statement "belief in prayer is irrational" is more than opinion (i.e. absolute fact) then we are in complete agreement and don't need to continue the discussion.

-Bri

[Bri]

Alright, then help me out then.

If you read through the thread, you'll see that I'm not necessarily in disagreement with the opinions of others on the thread who find belief in prayer to be irrational, except that I don't think that it is necessarily irrational to believe in prayer, God, or the invisible flying horseshoe-crab-like creature.

Depending on the belief itself and the person's reasons for holding the belief, I might well find someone who believes in any of them in need of professional help.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

When I have more time, I'll go back through the thread. You've indicated that your statement was not opinion, and you've also confirmed it when I've asked if you really meant that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. If you don't believe that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational and you don't believe that your statement "belief in prayer is irrational" is more than opinion (i.e. absolute fact) then we are in complete agreement and don't need to continue the discussion.

-Bri
I know I said my previous post was the last, but exactly is an absolute fact? Are you able to name one? I believe RandFan has addressed this several times for you.

[Edit] It appears I completely misread you post, and I apologize. You may disregard this post. :o

[Bri]

I know I said my previous post was the last, but exactly is an absolute fact? Are you able to name one?

Yes, it is an absolute fact that it is possible that prayer influences some events.

I believe RandFan has addressed this several times for you.

I thought so too, but then RandFan backpedals about whether belief in prayer is necessarily irrational or provisionally irrational (the former indicating absolute fact, the latter indicating opinion).

Assuming it is provisionally and not necessarily irrational (i.e. assuming that he is stating his opinion rather than absolute fact) then he and I are in agreement.

[Edit] I responded before I read your edit, so you may also disregard this post.

-Bri

[RandFan]

I thought so too, but then RandFan backpedals about whether belief in prayer is necessarily irrational or provisionally irrational (the former indicating absolute fact, the latter indicating opinion). I would just like to make clear, I have not backpedaled in this thread and I resent the suggestion. My position has been clear from my first post. Prayer is irrational. While I believe that is true I hold all truths provisionally. I have stated that fact time and time again. And Bri you know this is true.

My "opinion" is that the sun will rise tomorrow and that prayer is irrational, I share the sentiment of Todd Carroll that the belief in a super natural being who answers prayer is absurd. (http://skepdic.com/prayer.html) If some people find that offensive then that is too bad. It is.

If you want to add the addendum that prayer is necessarily irrational or not necessarily irrational I really don't care.

If you want to say that it is just my opinion, I don't care. Just understand that I hold the opinion that prayer is irrational and absurd as much as I hold that the sun will rise tomorrow.

All of this hand wringing about necessarily and not necessarily is truly beside the point. If I look at a naked man and remark that he is naked it my very well only be my opinion that he is naked and perhaps he is not necessarily naked. Perhaps I am simply unable to view his finely crafted garments.

In the end I find the distinction of necessarily or not necessarily silly at best.

...whatever gets you through the night.

[Bri]

I would just like to make clear, I have not backpedaled in this thread and I resent the suggestion. My position has been clear from my first post. Prayer is irrational. While I believe that is true I hold all truths provisionally. I have stated that fact time and time again. And Bri you know this is true.

You continue to backpedal after claiming that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational by immediately claiming that it is provisionally irrational. Sure, you have claimed "provisionally" in many posts, but then you have also claimed that you have no problem using the term "necessarily" (most recently a few posts back). I'm sorry, but provisionally and necessarily conflict with one another, which is why I've been attempting to nail you down on exactly which one you actually mean since early in the thread. If you agree that belief in prayer is not necessarily irrational, then you and I have no argument.

-Bri

[Anacoluthon64]

All of this hand wringing about necessarily and not necessarily is truly beside the point. If I look at a naked man and remark that he is naked it my very well only be my opinion that he is naked and perhaps he is not necessarily naked. Perhaps I am simply unable to view his finely crafted garments.

In the end I find the distinction of necessarily or not necessarily silly at best.Amen. But did you notice his silly hat? :D

Well said, my friend. Well said.

'Luthon64

[RandFan]

I'm sorry, but provisionally and necessarily conflict with one another, which is why I've been attempting to nail you down on exactly which one you actually mean since early in the thread. It is simply your opinion that "provisionally" and "necessarily" conflict. I see no conflict. I did not use the term "necessarily". That is your term. I just didn't object to it. I still don't. At the risk of "necessarily" arguing ad nauseam I'll repeat myself.

All of this hand wringing about necessarily and not necessarily is truly beside the point. If I look at a naked man and remark that he is naked it my very well only be my opinion that he is naked and perhaps he is not necessarily naked. Perhaps I am simply unable to view his finely crafted garments. That is my position, be free to make of it what you will.

[I less than three logic]

Yes, it is an absolute fact that it is possible that prayer influences some events.
I disagree. The only fact that exists here is our inability to prove that it is impossible at this time, so even that fact is provisional. It may be absolutely impossible for prayer to influence events, we simply lack any means to prove so, and must therefore conceded that it may be possible until such means are available. However, given the nature of the claim I doubt we will ever have such means, but I can’t prove that this is impossible either.

[Tricky]

Yes, it is an absolute fact that it is possible that prayer influences some events.
It is also an absolute fact that everything apart from logical contradictions is possible, even if incredibly unlikely, so the above statement really has no significance. It is still irrational to believe in something that can be shown to be extremely unlikely.

[Bri]

It is also an absolute fact that everything apart from logical contradictions is possible, even if incredibly unlikely, so the above statement really has no significance. It is still irrational to believe in something that can be shown to be extremely unlikely.

I didn't imply that it had any significance, other than as a statement of something that is an absolute fact. We have no way to judge how likely it is that prayer works, other than by speculation. Likewise, we can only speculate how likely it is that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system.

Do you think that prayer can be "shown to be extremely unlikely?" If so, please do so.

-Bri

[Bri]

It is simply your opinion that "provisionally" and "necessarily" conflict. I see no conflict. I did not use the term "necessarily". That is your term. I just didn't object to it. I still don't. At the risk of "necessarily" arguing ad nauseam I'll repeat myself.

This entire discussion has been about whether belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. Not only do you "not object" to the term, but you've agreed that you think that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. I've pointed out that the phrase "belief in prayer is necessarily irrational" implies an absolute fact, but you seem to believe that it means the same thing as "belief in prayer is provisionally irrational."


All of this hand wringing about necessarily and not necessarily is truly beside the point. If I look at a naked man and remark that he is naked it my very well only be my opinion that he is naked and perhaps he is not necessarily naked. Perhaps I am simply unable to view his finely crafted garments.

That is my position, be free to make of it what you will.

Your position concerns naked men? The thread certainly has taken an odd turn.

-Bri

[Tricky]

I didn't imply that it had any significance, other than as a statement of something that is an absolute fact. We have no way to judge how likely it is that prayer works, other than by speculation. Likewise, we can only speculate how likely it is that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system.

Do you think that prayer can be "shown to be extremely unlikely?" If so, please do so.

-Bri
Tests can be run on numerous kinds of prayer. In fact, they have been run on the efficacy of praying on illness. But here's a simple one.

Designate a specific desired outcome, such as the result of a coin flip.
Pray for that outcome. Flip the coin and record the result.
Repeat until a statistically significant sample is obtained
Compare the prayed-for result to the results that would have occured by chance.
If the desired outcome is significantly higher than that which would have occurred by chance, then praying works.In my experience, praying has no significant influence on the outcome of events. I know of no non-religious studies that show that praying has a significant influence on the outcome of events, but if there are, you can show them to me and I'll retract the statement. There are some academic studies (http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001290/35/)that show that prayer has minimal to insignificant influence on healing. Most researchers consider it to be so unlikely as to not be worth study.

Now of course, this is only testable for intercessory prayers. For prayers where you are simply talking to God, the protocol would require that you have a way of determining whether or not God heard you. That's a bit of a sticky point, considering that it would first require a comprehensive definition of "God" and some evidence that He exists. In short, you cannot show communication with an entity that you cannot show exists.

Now let us test the liklihood of intelligent life on planets.


Examine a planet.
determine if it has intelligent life

By this procedure, you can show that the liklihood of intelligent life on planets is one in nine.

[Bri]

Tests can be run on numerous kinds of prayer. In fact, they have been run on the efficacy of praying on illness. But here's a simple one.

You may have come into the conversation late, but I've already admitted that some beliefs in prayer are irrational, particularly those that can and have been proven wrong. However, many Christian beliefs in prayer, particularly those in conjunction with the belief that God might not want us to know for certain that he exists, cannot be "shown to be extremely unlikely."

In my experience, praying has no significant influence on the outcome of events. I know of no non-religious studies that show that praying has a significant influence on the outcome of events, but if there are, you can show them to me and I'll retract the statement.

I completely agree that there is no evidence of prayer working, but absence of evidence is only evidence if a particular testable outcome would be expected. Since many Christians don't believe that God grants all prayers, there is no reason to assume that a particular outcome will necessarily occur even if prayer works.


There are some academic studies (http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/view/0001290/35/)that show that prayer has minimal to insignificant influence on healing. Most researchers consider it to be so unlikely as to not be worth study.

The research that was done recently on the efficacy of praying on illness doesn't prove that prayer doesn't work. Most researchers consider most beliefs in prayer untestable, and therefore ridiculous to study. I tend to agree.

Now of course, this is only testable for intercessory prayers.

It is only testable for certain beliefs in intercessory prayers, specifically those beliefs that involve God granting prayers under testable conditions. If a Christian believes that God must grant prayers under testable conditions, then I agree that research would indicate otherwise.

For prayers where you are simply talking to God, the protocol would require that you have a way of determining whether or not God heard you. That's a bit of a sticky point, considering that it would first require a comprehensive definition of "God" and some evidence that He exists. In short, you cannot show communication with an entity that you cannot show exists.

Yes, which is why we specifically eliminated this sort of belief from consideration earlier in the thread. We were talking only about belief that prayer can influence events. Unfortunately, these beliefs cannot necessarily be "shown to be extremely unlikely."

-Bri

[Tricky]

Yes, which is why we specifically eliminated this sort of belief from consideration earlier in the thread. We were talking only about belief that prayer can influence events. Unfortunately, these beliefs cannot necessarily be "shown to be extremely unlikely."
The basic procedure remains the same:

Decide in advance what a "affected outcome" means in a way that can be unambiguously shown.
Pray.
Record whether or not the previously agreed upon "affected outcome" occurred.

Now if you are trying to argue that we cannot know what an "affected outcome" is, then you are, in essence, saying prayer is innefective because the "affected outcome" is indistinguishable from what might be expected without prayer.

[Bri]

The basic procedure remains the same:

Decide in advance what a "affected outcome" means in a way that can be unambiguously shown.
Pray.
Record whether or not the previously agreed upon "affected outcome" occurred.

Now if you are trying to argue that we cannot know what an "affected outcome" is, then you are, in essence, saying prayer is innefective because the "affected outcome" is indistinguishable from what might be expected without prayer.

No, I'm arguing that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence, and therefore might not make the outcome obvious. However, it doesn't follow that a prayer is necessarily ineffective even if it isn't obvious that the outcome is the result of the prayer.

-Bri

[Tricky]

No, I'm arguing that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence, and therefore might not make the outcome obvious. However, it doesn't follow that a prayer is necessarily ineffective even if it isn't obvious that the outcome is the result of the prayer.
What do you think "effective" means? If you can't perceive an effect, then it is ineffective. If you can't define what an effect is, it is ineffective, since an undefinded effect cannot be perceived. There is no difference between an effect which cannot be perceived versus no effect.

Hypothesizing about what God might or might not want us to know is not going to change that.

[Bri]

What do you think "effective" means? If you can't perceive an effect, then it is ineffective. If you can't define what an effect is, it is ineffective, since an undefinded effect cannot be perceived.

Effective simply means that it achieves its goals. A prayer would be effective even if it isn't obvious unless the goal of the prayer is to make God's existence clear. God could simply choose not to grant such prayers if he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence.

There is no difference between an effect which cannot be perceived versus no effect.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that. First, I didn't say that the effect isn't perceived, only that it might not be obvious that it was caused by the prayer. Second, an effect which is not perceived is still an effect.

Hypothesizing about what God might or might not want us to know is not going to change that.

No idea what you mean here. If God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence, he could certainly ensure that the only prayers that are granted are prayers that don't have obvious results.

-Bri

[RandFan]

This entire discussion has been about whether belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. Not only do you "not object" to the term, but you've agreed that you think that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. I've pointed out that the phrase "belief in prayer is necessarily irrational" implies an absolute fact, but you seem to believe that it means the same thing as "belief in prayer is provisionally irrational."(emphasis mine). Please pay close attention to the above bolded text. Got it?

:mad: I'm getting really tired of repeating myself (not to mention pissed off).

I've re-written this post several times and I have whittled it down to just 6 propositions. Please look carefully at them and try to understand them to the best of your ability. I hate to be condescending but if you do not understand the word proposition will you please read this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition)? Feel free to chose a different source or dictionary if you so choose. If you should choose a dictionary use the definition that would address logical argument.

The propositions are in bold and are numbered.

P1: I do not hold any position as absolute!

P2: Science does not hold any position as absolute!

P3: The sun won't necessarily rise tomorrow.

P4: I am not necessarily a descendant of 4 grandparents.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

P5: Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"

...

P6: In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." So, are there any of the propositions that you disagree with or that you do not understand?

Your position concerns naked men? The thread certainly has taken an odd turn.I was trying to point out the absurdity of your position. It comes from an old parable, The Emperors New Clothes (http://www.moria.co.nz/fantasy/empsnewclothes.htm). If you get an opportunity I suggest you take the time to read it. Just follow the link.

I will try and make the point (of not seeing clothes that are not there) clear for you but we are going to have to take this a step at a time. First things first. Tell me which if any of the above propositions that you have a problem with?

[Bri]

I've re-written this post several times and I have whittled it down to just 6 propositions.

I only saw 4:

P1: I do not hold any position as absolute!

P2: Science does not hold any position as absolute!

P3: The sun won't necessarily rise tomorrow.

P4: I am not necessarily a descendant of 4 grandparents.

So, are there any of the propositions that you disagree with or that you do not understand?


I agree with P1 and P2, and they don't seem to conflict with any argument I've made thus far in this thread. P3, although true, seems to be irrelevant to the discussion. P4 is certainly true since your parents could be siblings (which means that you'd have only 2 grandparents).

I was trying to point out the absurdity of your position. It comes from an old parable, The Emperors New Clothes (http://www.moria.co.nz/fantasy/empsnewclothes.htm). If you get an opportunity I suggest you take the time to read it. Just follow the link.

I'm familiar with the parable, but I still find the example odd (not to mention irrelevant to the discussion). Sorry.

Assuming these 4 propositions represent the extent of your position, you appear to now fully agree with what I've been saying all along.

-Bri

[RandFan]

I only saw 4: ? Are you playing games?

5 & 6 were in the quote. I will remove the quote. Do you see them now?

>>>>>>Start Quote

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

P5: Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"

...

P6: In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

>>>>>> End Quote

P4 is certainly true since your parents could be siblings (which means that you'd have only 2 grandparents). If you are playing games I'm really not in the mood for it. Could you please be serious?

P4: I am not necessarily descendant from at least one grandparent.

Assuming these 4 propositions represent the extent of your position, you appear to now fully agree with what I've been saying all along.:mad: This really pisses me off.

I'll respond but I need to you to respond to #4, #5 and #6 first.

[Anacoluthon64]

No, I'm arguing that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence, and therefore might not make the outcome obvious.You have propounded such a caveat at least once before in this thread, yet you fail, or possibly refuse, to see the fatal damage it does to your argument: if true, this provision necessitates that belief in the effectiveness of prayer be classed as irrational, for we cannot know in advance what outcome any given prayer will produce. Any result that differs from the one intended will constitute "evidence" for both of the two opposing perspectives about prayer's effectiveness. The latter view is only tenable in a postmodernist frame of mind.


However, it doesn't follow that a prayer is necessarily ineffective even if it isn't obvious that the outcome is the result of the prayer.Agreed. But it does, as indicated above, follow that it is then necessarily irrational.

'Luthon64

[Tricky]

Effective simply means that it achieves its goals. A prayer would be effective even if it isn't obvious unless the goal of the prayer is to make God's existence clear.
But by your own admission it may be impossible to tell if a prayer succeeds. Tell me, in what other situation would an action which produced no discernable result be called "effective"?
God could simply choose not to grant such prayers if he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence.
There you go hypothesizing about what God may want again. What if God hates prayer? Would you also agree that it is rational to believe that prayer is countereffective?

I'm not sure how you arrive at that. First, I didn't say that the effect isn't perceived, only that it might not be obvious that it was caused by the prayer.

If you can't tie it to the cause, then you can't call it an effect.
Second, an effect which is not perceived is still an effect. But you'd never know it. So it would be irrational to believe it had an effect that you could not perceive.

No idea what you mean here. If God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence, he could certainly ensure that the only prayers that are granted are prayers that don't have obvious results.And as soon as you can provide some evidence that God doesn't want us to know for certain of His existence, then that belief becomes rational. Until then, it is not.

[Bri]

P5: Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"

P6: In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."


Sorry I missed them. Yes, I also agree with P5 and P6. Two additional comment. First, the word "necessary" indicates an absolute fact. If you say that B necessarily follows from A, that means that there is no chance that B doesn't follow from A (which is why the word is seldom used in science except in conjunction with the word "not" such as "not necessarily" and is otherwise generally restricted to logic). Second, evolution and the sun rising tomorrow and the number of grandparents you have and even naked men are facts because there is significant evidence to back them up. They therefore meet the requirement of P6 and are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." Not so with opinions for which there is little evidence. If you include the word "necessarily" to indicate an absolute fact rather than just a fact, the evidence required to back it up is even higher.

If you are playing games I'm really not in the mood for it. Could you please be serious?

P4: I am not necessarily descendant from at least one grandparent.

Lighten up. I was actually making a point, that even if you accept that facts don't require absolute certainty, you still need significant evidence to back them up (see P6). I now agree with P4, with the above comments applied.

So, I agree with all of your premises! Again, if that is the extent of your argument, then we are in total agreement!

-Bri

[Bri]

But by your own admission it may be impossible to tell if a prayer succeeds. Tell me, in what other situation would an action which produced no discernable result be called "effective"?

I don't know where you get "no discernible result" from. A prayer is effective if it does what it is intended to do, regardless of whether the result is obvious.

There you go hypothesizing about what God may want again. What if God hates prayer? Would you also agree that it is rational to believe that prayer is countereffective?

All are possibilities, and if someone held such belief, I wouldn't say that their belief is necessarily irrational (depending on the belief and their reasons for holding it, of course. But we were talking about Christian belief in prayer on this thread.


If you can't tie it to the cause, then you can't call it an effect.

If there is a cause, it is an effect regardless of whether we know the cause or not.

But you'd never know it. So it would be irrational to believe it had an effect that you could not perceive.

Who said that you cannot perceive the effect?

And as soon as you can provide some evidence that God doesn't want us to know for certain of His existence, then that belief becomes rational. Until then, it is not.

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

Nonetheless, using the same logic, until you can provide some evidence for such beliefs as "intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy" or "Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational" then those beliefs also become irrational.

-Bri

[Cuddles]

Nonetheless, using the same logic, until you can provide some evidence for such beliefs as "intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy"

We know intelligent life exists and we know elsewhere exists. It is therefore not irrational to consider the possibility that there is intelligent life elsewhere. It is no way proven, but a belief of this could in no way be considered irrational.

or "Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational" then those beliefs also become irrational.

-Bri

If you read Anacoluthon64s post a couple above yours this has already been explained.

[Ossai]

Bri
I don't know where you get "no discernible result" from. General result of all prayer, no better than chance or placebo.

A prayer is effective if it does what it is intended to do, regardless of whether the result is obvious. A father prays for his son to be healed, the son dies. Therefore, according to you, the prayer was answered.

If there is a cause, it is an effect regardless of whether we know the cause or not. An effect is the cause which is the effect because we don’t know the cause? :confused: huh?

Who said that you cannot perceive the effect? Well, a number of people including yourself.

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence. Dizzy enough yet?
That whole statement is meaningless.

Nonetheless, using the same logic,
Logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) this is Bri, Bri this is logic (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html). You haven’t been properly introduced.

Ossai

[Freethinker]

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

That is quite possibly the most nonsensical thing I've ever read. I presume then that the fact that we don't know for certain that the Tooth Fairy exists is solid evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists. Wow, I bow in the face of this irrefuteable logic.:rolleyes:

[Beth]

Tell me, in what other situation would an action which produced no discernable result be called "effective"?


Corporate Politics. :D Or maybe just politics.

[Anacoluthon64]

Tell me, in what other situation would an action which produced no discernable result be called "effective"?To add to Beth's answer, the entirety of CAM springs to mind.

And, apparently, this thread.

'Luthon64

[elliotfc]

Been busy recently! Don't know what the state of this thread is exactly, but Bri appears to be doing yeowoman's work.

Came across this prayer recently...

I asked and God gave...
I asked for strength and God gave me difficulties to make me strong.
I asked for wisdom and God gave me problems to solve.
I asked for prosperity and God gave me muscles and brains to work.
I asked for courage and God gave me dangers to overcome.
I asked for patience and God placed me in situations where I was forced to wait.
I asked for love and God gave me troubled people to help.
I asked for favors and God gave me opportunities.
I received nothing I wanted; I received everything I needed.
My prayers have all been answered.

A good prayer! Not very testable though.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

The basic procedure remains the same:

Decide in advance what a "affected outcome" means in a way that can be unambiguously shown.
Pray.
Record whether or not the previously agreed upon "affected outcome" occurred.

This would fall under "putting God to the test". Unambiguously. We Christians don't believe that God is an unthinking procedure like gravity.

We can "agree" upon outcomes, but if God is akin to a personality, as we believe, you'd kind of need God to agree on the outcomes as well, don't you think?

Now if you are trying to argue that we cannot know what an "affected outcome" is, then you are, in essence, saying prayer is innefective because the "affected outcome" is indistinguishable from what might be expected without prayer.

To those who think that testing prayer in such a way is ludicrous, any conclusion reached in regards to ineffectiveness is likewise ludicrous.

I understand and accept that from a different mindset (yours), all that you propose seems quite reasonable.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

No, I'm arguing that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence, and therefore might not make the outcome obvious.

Most everyone who reads the New Testament would agree that God wants us to know him by "faith". That's how we are supposed to have a relationship with God. So I'd agree, but phrase it differently. It isn't that God specifically does not want us to know of his existence in the same way that we know rocks and trees exist. That might not actually occur to him (although that may deductively follow). Rather, the *best* way for us to know God, at this juncture in our existence, is by having faith in him.

And if that's correct (from the Christian perspective of course), manifold things follow as well. Including what you propose, that prayer outcomes would, or ought, not be obvious in the way we would have them be. As I've said before, if God did anything we asked him to do exactly as we asked him to do it, what's the point of faith? There would be no faith, just as you wouldn't have faith in pressing buttons on a microwave. It is what it is. But we are supposed to have faith. Ergo...

However, it doesn't follow that a prayer is necessarily ineffective even if it isn't obvious that the outcome is the result of the prayer.

It could be necessarily ineffective to the outsider. But I think the outsider ought to be able to recognize, at the very least, the possibility of subjective effectiveness, or, some kind of indirect actual effectiveness.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

What do you think "effective" means? If you can't perceive an effect, then it is ineffective.

I disagree. If your perception is faulty, that would be independent of effectiveness.

If you can't define what an effect is, it is ineffective, since an undefinded effect cannot be perceived.

I can't even say I disagree with this. I don't know the foundation behind such a statement, it seems completely contrived (no offense, please feel free to elaborate).

There is no difference between an effect which cannot be perceived versus no effect.

Again, I disagree. If I replace someone's vitamins with I dunno, human growth hormone or something, they may never perceive that, but effects may occur and they would credit such effects to other things. Not the best analogy, I'll think of a better one in the near future if we choose to chew this over.

Hypothesizing about what God might or might not want us to know is not going to change that.

And if God acts in ways that are not directly and correctly and singularly and undoubtedly perceivable, that's just the way it is.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

You have propounded such a caveat at least once before in this thread, yet you fail, or possibly refuse, to see the fatal damage it does to your argument: if true, this provision necessitates that belief in the effectiveness of prayer be classed as irrational, for we cannot know in advance what outcome any given prayer will produce.

I accept that you consider it to be irrational.

Since we believe that God has free will, a will greater than our own, a will better than our own, it would be irrataional (in my opinoin) for a Christian to expect God to be a slave to our decided outcomes viz a viz prayer.

So I see your point to be *fundamentally* irrational because it does not mesh with how Christians understand prayer.

Any result that differs from the one intended will constitute "evidence" for both of the two opposing perspectives about prayer's effectiveness. The latter view is only tenable in a postmodernist frame of mind.

But Christians don't believe that God is a slave to our intentions. If he was...but I've already given many many many examples. It's be an untenable world, in my opinion, if God was in fact a slave to our intentions. Y'all complain about how God is a real bastard for allowing rape and mass murder to happen. I can't imagine how much you'd be complaining about if God answered every prayer, exactly as it was intended to be answered.

-Elliot

[Tricky]

Welcome back.
This would fall under "putting God to the test". Unambiguously. We Christians don't believe that God is an unthinking procedure like gravity.So belief in a god that answers prayers is irrational. That is the only point I am making. Believing a thing is effective without requiring evidence that it is effective is irrational. That's all. I'm not saying everything you or Bri believes is irrational. I'm not even making any moral judgments on it. It is just a question of what "irrational" means and what conditions satisfy that meaning.

We can "agree" upon outcomes, but if God is akin to a personality, as we believe, you'd kind of need God to agree on the outcomes as well, don't you think?
No, I don't think that. I'm not asking God if it is rational. I'm asking you. You are the one who must define what outcome would satisfy you as evidence of intervention. If you cannot think of any, well, here comes that word again.;)

To those who think that testing prayer in such a way is ludicrous, any conclusion reached in regards to ineffectiveness is likewise ludicrous.
Not at all. How many times have you heard a Christian say, "I thank God for answering my prayers for ____________". (Fill in the blank with some positive outcome, such as surviving an accident, winning the lottery etc.) They might say, "God was watching over me," or something similar, as if sometimes He does, sometimes He doesn't. So it is quite obvious that those who believe in the efficacy of prayer are quite content to use outcomes to justify their position, when it suits them. All I ask is that those positive outcomes which "prove" God to them be considered against outcomes which are negative or neutral. If you accept a miracle as evidence for God, then unless you accept a tragic accident as evidence against God, then your belief in God based on miracles is irrational. You can't have it both ways (and still be rational.)


I understand and accept that from a different mindset (yours), all that you propose seems quite reasonable.

Not just reasonable, but the definition of the word, rational. Unlike my fear of roaches.

[Tricky]

Been busy recently! Don't know what the state of this thread is exactly, but Bri appears to be doing yeowoman's work.

Came across this prayer recently...

And I might reply

I didn’t ask God and I still got...
I didn’t ask God for strength and I still got difficulties to make me strong.
I didn’t ask God for wisdom and I still got problems to solve.
I didn’t ask God for prosperity and I still got muscles and (some semblance of) brains to work.
I didn’t ask God for courage and I still got dangers to overcome.
I didn’t ask God for patience and I still got placed in situations where I was forced to wait.
I didn’t ask God for love and I still got troubled people to help.
I didn’t ask God for favors and I still got opportunities.
I asked for nothing; I got stuff anyway.
No prayers were required.


(It is a silly prayer that assumes the conclusion. There is a word for this kind of stuff. Glurge.)

[elliotfc]

But by your own admission it may be impossible to tell if a prayer succeeds.

It may be impossible when it comes to certain methodologies, but why should certain methodologies have dogmatic power over others? Meaning, if someone accepts that a prayer has succeeded, independent of a scientific methodology, and if they are *correct*, well, there ya go.

Is belief in prayer contingent on science? Well...no. Not a remarkable point, is it?

Tell me, in what other situation would an action which produced no discernable result be called "effective"?

I don't think that Christians believe prayer produces no discernable results! Rather, they don't believe that prayer produces *specific, pre-determined and singularly expected* results.

There you go hypothesizing about what God may want again. What if God hates prayer?

!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Bri is arguing from the perspective of a Christian, of course Christians *do* think they have many ideas about what God wants, and we have no reason, based on the NT, to think that God hates *prayer*. Now, he may hate some prayers in particular (like a prayer that a person could get away with a serial killing spree)...but God hating prayer, no if ands or buts? There is no basis for a Christian to believe that.

Would you also agree that it is rational to believe that prayer is countereffective?

I think it could be rational to believe that. Prayer *ought* to, first and foremost, bring us closer to God, and allow us to submit ourselves to God's will and not our own. But such ideas would be irrelevant to those who don't believe in God. Therefore, such people would only be interested in the specifics of prayer, and not the general understanding of prayer as far as a relationship with God goes.

This way of looking at prayer (excluding all generalties) could definitely conclude that prayer is counterproductive, because it makes prayer to be like using a stereo. It either works or it doesn't. But you wouldn't have a relationship with a stereo (unless you're into that sort of thing).

If you can't tie it to the cause, then you can't call it an effect.

Or you could tie it to the cause, but others wouldn't be convinced that such a tie was valid.

But you'd never know it.

That's where faith comes in. :)

So it would be irrational to believe it had an effect that you could not perceive.

There's quite a bit about Christianity that is, to many, irrational. A virgin having a kid. Dead people rising from the dead. The least of us being the most blessed. And if it these things are *true*, obsessing over their rationality is a fool's errand. In my opinion. I prefer objective reality to personal opinions about rationality. And OF COURSE, human rationality is less than God's.

Paul said that if Christ never rose from the dead, all of Christianity is foolishness. Allow me to make irrationality commensurate to foolishness. In this way I agree. Yes, of course people can conclude that A, B, or C, that Chrisitans believe, is irraitonal. *You have that opinion because you do not have faith in the things that we have faith in*. And if we are correct, the judgment of the non-believers is to us the greatest of foolishness. Or irrational.

It is in this way, and only in this way, that I agree with all that you say when you bring up irrationality. You also use it in the directed sense (relating it to scientific discernment) which I do not feel any reason to submit to, and in that sense, I only agree that your conclusion is correct within that confinement. But I'm not so confined, so whatever.

And as soon as you can provide some evidence that God doesn't want us to know for certain of His existence, then that belief becomes rational. Until then, it is not.

That's a funny place to draw the line. Why not say..."provide some evidence that God *exists*"? Or, are you assuming that for the sake of this discussion? And if so, you could also assume that God wants us to have faith in his existence. ;)

-Elliot

[Anacoluthon64]

Welcome back, Elliot; I hope you were productive on top of being busy!? :D

I accept that you consider it to be irrational.

...

So I see your point to be *fundamentally* irrational because it does not mesh with how Christians understand prayer.My rejoinder was in response to Bri's representation of christians' conception of prayer and their god's role in it, not one that I presume to impose on them.

In any case, I'll let Tricky provide a salient reply:
No, I don't think that. I'm not asking God if it is rational. I'm asking you. You are the one who must define what outcome would satisfy you as evidence of intervention. If you cannot think of any, well, here comes that word again.;)

'Luthon64

[RandFan]

Sorry I missed them. Yes, I also agree with P5 and P6. Two additional comment. First, the word "necessary" indicates an absolute fact. If you say that B necessarily follows from A, that means that there is no chance that B doesn't follow from A (which is why the word is seldom used in science except in conjunction with the word "not" such as "not necessarily" and is otherwise generally restricted to logic). {sigh} :(

1.) I did not use the word necessarily. You did.
2.) I do not hold absolute facts.
3.) If I said the sun will rise tomorrow I would not add the provision "not necessarily"
4.) If someone asked me if the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow I would say yes.

Second, evolution and the sun rising tomorrow and the number of grandparents you have and even naked men are facts because there is significant evidence to back them up. They therefore meet the requirement of P6 and are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." Prayer is irrational. I hold that position provisionally. It would be perverse for me to withhold provisional consent. I subscribe to the position put forth by Todd Carroll in the Skeptics dictionary.

A miracle (http://skepdic.com/miracles.html) may be defined as a violation of the laws of nature through willful intervention. By asking an SB or energy to interfere with the ordinary course of natural events, one is requesting a miracle. To believe in miracles, as David Hume (http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Modphil/Inquiry10.htm) argued several centuries ago, is to go against the universal experience that there is an inexorable order and lawfulness to our sense perceptions. All our rules of reasoning are based upon this experience. We would have to abandon them to believe in miracles.

Not so with opinions for which there is little evidence.What "opinion" for which there is little or no evidence? My position on prayer is based on the laws of physics and reason as is the sun rising. If you ask me if I had a grandfather I would say yes. I can't prove it. Both are dead. If you said that I had over stated my case I would say no. If you said that I did not necessarily have a grandfather I would have to concede that YOUR view is possible since all things are possible and I could have been put here by aliens. It is NOT MY VIEW.

It is not my view that prayer is not necessarily irrational.
It is not my view that the sun will not necessarily rise tomorrow.

If you include the word "necessarily" to indicate an absolute fact rather than just a fact, the evidence required to back it up is even higher. "Absolute fact"? If you agree with P5 and P6 then why make this statement? You are being inconsistent. You either subscribe to P5 and P6 or you don't. If you do agree with P5 then stop saying "absolute fact" in the context of our discussion.

Lighten up. I was actually making a point, that even if you accept that facts don't require absolute certainty, you still need significant evidence to back them up (see P6). I now agree with P4, with the above comments applied.

So, I agree with all of your premises! Again, if that is the extent of your argument, then we are in total agreement! P4 is simply a proposition. I DON'T hold it.

The evidence is too great for me to withhold provisional consent.

[elliotfc]

I don't know where you get "no discernible result" from. A prayer is effective if it does what it is intended to do, regardless of whether the result is obvious.

It may also be effective if it does something that it was *not* intended to do. Many people say things like....boy, I prayed for this, but I got that...and "that" was what I really needed after all!

All are possibilities, and if someone held such belief, I wouldn't say that their belief is necessarily irrational (depending on the belief and their reasons for holding it, of course. But we were talking about Christian belief in prayer on this thread.

There aren't any Christians participating in this thread! Besides me! I'm speaking from that perspective. And I think you're accurately representing it, as far as you are choosing to do so.

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

Exactly.

-Elliot

[Tricky]

I disagree. If your perception is faulty, that would be independent of effectiveness. If you can't tell if it is effective and yet you still believe it is effective, then your belief is irrational. If you can tell, then it is not irrational. Can you tell, or is it just faith?

I can't even say I disagree with this. I don't know the foundation behind such a statement, it seems completely contrived (no offense, please feel free to elaborate).It has to do with how we judge things to be effective. The only way to do so is to show the link between cause and effect. You can do this by showing the mechanics or you can do it statistically (perhaps some other ways). If you cannot link cause to effect, then you cannot say a certain thing (cause) is effective. What I keep hearing you and Bri say is that you personally need not be able to link cause (prayer) with effect (outcome) in order to believe that prayer is effective. I will continue to maintain that such a position is irrational.

Again, I disagree. If I replace someone's vitamins with I dunno, human growth hormone or something, they may never perceive that, but effects may occur and they would credit such effects to other things. Not the best analogy, I'll think of a better one in the near future if we choose to chew this over.
Oh sure, you can make detection of effectiveness difficult by seeding with false data, in this case the contents of the pills one is taking. It might take some time to uncover the mistake, but it could be uncovered. And when it was, then the conclusion that the vitamins led to rapid growth would have to be thrown out. I'm not saying you can't be mistaken. All of us can in so many ways. But unless you agree that there is some way to judge effectiveness, then you are essentially saying that you don't know if a thing is effective.


And if God acts in ways that are not directly and correctly and singularly and undoubtedly perceivable, that's just the way it is.And if you believe it without evidence, then that belief is irrational. That's just the way it is.

Really, you and Bri shouldn't be so sensitive about being irrational about your religion. All honest people will admit that they are irrational about some things.

[elliotfc]

I think it's a great prayer!

I think this has to be...at least...the 15th time...I've seen an atheist re-write a prayer to make a point. Probably closer to 20 times. I'm glad that you respect the templates! Harder to come up with your own, but whatever. Glad it was serviceable to your needs!

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

We know intelligent life exists and we know elsewhere exists. It is therefore not irrational to consider the possibility that there is intelligent life elsewhere. It is no way proven, but a belief of this could in no way be considered irrational.

We consider God to be intelligent life.

-Elliot

[RandFan]

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.Thus ignorance become evidence.

The absense of evidence can only be the absense of evidence. No more. No less. To think otherwise is to abandon logic and reason.

[elliotfc]

That is quite possibly the most nonsensical thing I've ever read.

Really?!?

It starts with accepting God's existence. I understand that you *don't*, but just do, for the moment. God exists.

Bri was acknowledging what I hear you people say over and over and over and over and over again. There is no evidence that God, in fact, exists. You can't have a problem with that statement, can you?

So. Add the 2 things together. Is the conclusion that God exists, and doesn't want us to know his existence, non-sensical? It would appear to follow, would it not?

I presume then that the fact that we don't know for certain that the Tooth Fairy exists is solid evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists.

You completely missed the point Bri was making. I agree that your leap is something to roll ones eyes over.

-Elliot

[drkitten]

It starts with accepting God's existence. I understand that you *don't*, but just do, for the moment. God exists.

Bri was acknowledging what I hear you people say over and over and over and over and over again. There is no evidence that God, in fact, exists. You can't have a problem with that statement, can you?

So. Add the 2 things together. Is the conclusion that God exists, and doesn't want us to know his existence, non-sensical?

Yes.

Accepting the conclusion of any argument that "starts with" a nonsensical premise is itself nonsensical.

[RandFan]

I asked for strength and God gave me difficulties to make me strong. I asked the Doctor for medicine because I was sick. He gave me a placebo and my condition got much worse but ultimately this made me stronger. Thank you Doctor.

I asked an attorney to prove my innocence at trial but he was incompetent and I went to jail. In jail I spent my time reading books, this made me wiser. Fighting the bullies in prison made me stronger. Facing the bullies gave me courage. Waiting for my release gave me patience. Thanks attorney.

It's amazing how everything works to our benefit if we view it properly.

Odd thing is, if you don't pray you still get all of the benefits of prayer.

[Ossai]

elliotfc
You completely missed the point Bri was making. I agree that your leap is something to roll ones eyes over. Bri had a point? What was it?

Or is a Bri point like yours, meaningless assertion?

Ossai

[RandFan]

Is the conclusion that God exists, and doesn't want us to know his existence, non-sensical? That the absense of any evidence is evidence of something is non-sensical in every sense.

[Moochie]

And what of the person who prayed this (elliotfc's) prayer and won millions in lotto?

I might be way off, but this stuff looks more like a certain political orientation than anything else.

M.

[JamesDillon]

That the absense of any evidence is evidence of something is non-sensical in every sense.

That's just what God wants you to think.

[Tricky]

It may be impossible when it comes to certain methodologies, but why should certain methodologies have dogmatic power over others? Um... because they can be objectively demonstrated? Kinda like why chemistry is better than alchemy.

Meaning, if someone accepts that a prayer has succeeded, independent of a scientific methodology, and if they are *correct*, well, there ya go.

Is belief in prayer contingent on science? Well...no. Not a remarkable point, is it?
Maybe not science, but objectivity. Science is just a tool for finding objective truth.


I don't think that Christians believe prayer produces no discernable results! Rather, they don't believe that prayer produces *specific, pre-determined and singularly expected* results. If you can't define successful results in advance, then you can't say it has produced successful results. If you define what constitutes successful results after they have happened, then you can claim successful results for absolutely anything.
[political diversion]Both Israel and Hizbollah are claiming success in the war. If you had asked them a month ago what "success" meant, do you think either of them would have called this current situation "success"?[/political diversion]

If Bri is arguing from the perspective of a Christian, of course Christians *do* think they have many ideas about what God wants, and we have no reason, based on the NT, to think that God hates *prayer*. Now, he may hate some prayers in particular (like a prayer that a person could get away with a serial killing spree)...but God hating prayer, no if ands or buts? There is no basis for a Christian to believe that.
Nevertheless, it is every bit as rational as belief that God likes prayer. There is an equal amount of evidence for it. Maybe more.


I think it could be rational to believe that. Prayer *ought* to, first and foremost, bring us closer to God, and allow us to submit ourselves to God's will and not our own. But such ideas would be irrelevant to those who don't believe in God. Therefore, such people would only be interested in the specifics of prayer, and not the general understanding of prayer as far as a relationship with God goes.
How do you know what prayer *ought* to do? (Yes, I know the answer: Faith). Is there any reason why Christian faith is more reliable than other kind of faith? How can you tell?

That's where faith comes in. :) And irrationality!:)

There's quite a bit about Christianity that is, to many, irrational. A virgin having a kid. Dead people rising from the dead. The least of us being the most blessed. And if it these things are *true*, obsessing over their rationality is a fool's errand. In my opinion.
Call me a fool then. I think it is good for all of us to recognize where we are being irrational. I don't obsess over it. I've got lots of other things to do, as apparently you do too.

And OF COURSE, human rationality is less than God's. Um... could you demonstrate this without using the F-word?

That's a funny place to draw the line. Why not say..."provide some evidence that God *exists*"? Or, are you assuming that for the sake of this discussion? And if so, you could also assume that God wants us to have faith in his existence. ;)
LOL. We've been there. Again and again and again. Like you, I just ride the merry-go-round because it's fun, not because it gets me anywhere.

[elliotfc]

So belief in a god that answers prayers is irrational. That is the only point I am making.

I accept that point but I would qualify it. I would say "belief in god that answers prayers *exactly as we would have God answer them* is irrational". Actually I wouldn't say such a thing, but, I would be partial to the idea.

So, you might respond by saying...why, then, would anyone pray to God in a specific way? And I could respond, and say "well, why not? What's wrong with making a request?"

It can't hurt to ask...unless...you ask with specific and non-negotiable expectations.

Believing a thing is effective without requiring evidence that it is effective is irrational. That's all.

But we *do* require evidence, I don't think you're getting that. Our *kind* of evidence isn't the kind of evidence you are satisfied with, because you have a different way of handling this topic than do we.

Our evidence, to you, is not evidence. That's why we'll bonk heads. I see your statement, and I say "poopysticks! I require evidence". And then you say "yeah, but your evidence is not really evidence". When making such a statement you're taking a lot of things for granted. Our perspectives are not in alignment, that's for sure.

But I accept that you consider this to be irrational. No sense yelling at you, unless you think that would help to change your mind. :)

No, I don't think that. I'm not asking God if it is rational. I'm asking you. You are the one who must define what outcome would satisfy you as evidence of intervention.

Well of course you're speaking non-literally...I must define?...that doesn't have any legs. I don't believe in limiting outcomes when it comes to God's grace, so I'm exempting myself from what you say I must do.

Not at all. How many times have you heard a Christian say, "I thank God for answering my prayers for ____________". (Fill in the blank with some positive outcome, such as surviving an accident, winning the lottery etc.)

Many times. Maybe they're right! Maybe they're not. It's a nice thing to say. Or maybe it isn't. I don't know.

They might say, "God was watching over me," or something similar, as if sometimes He does, sometimes He doesn't.

Yes, I agree that if you follow-up on the language and take it as far as it goes, you'll come up with such things. And of course you could pin someone down in such a way. But does that mean that God *wasn't* watching. No, even though I appreciate the point your making here.

So it is quite obvious that those who believe in the efficacy of prayer are quite content to use outcomes to justify their position, when it suits them.

Sure. Prayer is a personal thing, and people will say things that suit them. And they could be completely correct! Or not. I dunno.

All I ask is that those positive outcomes which "prove" God to them be considered against outcomes which are negative or neutral.

Good point. This would have to be a personal plea, I think. I get your point.

I think most Christians have what I've called the Christian understanding of prayer, yet still proclaim the positive outcomes of prayer. And why not? Why, exactly, should they *not* do that? As for the unanswered prayers (negative/neutral), they appear to not be as easily proclaimed. But I don't think too much should be made of that. If I tell my girlfriend what happened to me during the day, I'll mention a few things. Maybe several things. But the bulk of the things I won't talk about. OK. That's how it is with many things. Sometimes you just talk about things that are more interesting or compelling than others.

Now, I'm the kind of person who is probably more partial to talk about what you would call neutral/negative prayer. But whatever. People can talk about whatever they want to talk about. I'm sure if you pinned someone down you can get them to talk about other things.

If you accept a miracle as evidence for God, then unless you accept a tragic accident as evidence against God, then your belief in God based on miracles is irrational.

But does a tragic accident have to *necessarily* be evidence against God? I don't think your point follows.

You can't have it both ways (and still be rational.)

Accept we don't think that God exists solely to perform miracles anytime they are asked for. I think I've said this many times. We believe that our lives will include suffering, and eventually death. That's the way it is. God won't be a non-stop miracle worker to take those things away.

Will he do miraculous things? Yes. That's what we believe.

I'm no longer interested in whether or not people consider this general perspective to be irrational. If it is the correct perspective, this opinion will have zero meaning to me, as opposed to what it has now. A little bit of meaning. I think it's dwindling, the more times I see it enunciated. :) Maybe after 10 more pages of this thread it will be just about at zero, at which point I'll no longer feel the urge to engage the irrationality point. ;)

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Welcome back, Elliot; I hope you were productive on top of being busy!? :D

I was in the studio mostly! I would have preferred to have been reproductive, instead of productive, but whatever. ;)

My rejoinder was in response to Bri's representation of christians' conception of prayer and their god's role in it, not one that I presume to impose on them.

Here's one. Are Christians irrational, within the Christian perspective, or only irrational according to the working perspective in this forum?

In any case, I'll let Tricky provide a salient reply

Yeah, he's a salty one alright. :P

-Elliot

[Freethinker]

Really?!?

It starts with accepting God's existence. I understand that you *don't*, but just do, for the moment. God exists.

Bri was acknowledging what I hear you people say over and over and over and over and over again. There is no evidence that God, in fact, exists. You can't have a problem with that statement, can you?

So. Add the 2 things together. Is the conclusion that God exists, and doesn't want us to know his existence, non-sensical? It would appear to follow, would it not?



Okay then, accept god exists. Some scenarios:

1. God doesn't want us to see any evidence he exists.

2. God is so puny and feeble that even though he tries his hardest to make us aware of his existence, he can't.

3. Satan is so stong that he beats god down everytime god tries to let us know he exists.

4. God hates us and is hiding from us because he wants us to go burn in hell.

5. We all have invisible pink unicorns flying around our heads blocking out all signs of god's existence with their magic wings. (Of course you have to accept that the IPUs exist, but that's no different than accepting god exists, because there is the same amount of evidence.)

etc., etc., etc. .......


Which of those doesn't follow Bri's "logic"? They are all equally possible if you are open-minded.

[RandFan]

But does a tragic accident have to *necessarily* be evidence against God? I don't think your point follows.I just don't see the point. If treatment for cancer can't be shown to work then why believe that it does? If I examine two groups of an equal number of people with cancer. Let's say 1000 in each group. And the rate of death is the same for both groups yet one group is religious and prays for cures and the other doesn't then what purpose does the prayer serve as it relates to miracles?

If I can't discern which group of individuals believes in prayer from the other then what is the point of miracles? Miracles appear to be things that happen to everyone whether we want them to or not. Whether we pray for them or not.

[Freethinker]

Are Christians irrational, within the Christian perspective, or only irrational according to the working perspective in this forum?

I don't think rationality can be defined within a perspective. Crazy people are rational within the lunatic perspective. (don't make the link that I'm saying Christians are crazy, it's just an example). Christians have a built-in bias caused by their assumption that god exists. You cannot base a rational argument on an irrational assumption. The "Christian perspective" includes an assumption for which there is no evidence. Anything built on this is invalid until the basic assumption is supported.

[elliotfc]

If you can't tell if it is effective and yet you still believe it is effective, then your belief is irrational.

I don't think I'll agree with this particular dogma, but I will say that probably most Christians (including me) thinks that they can detect the efficacy of prayer, but I'm sure not in any way that would satisfy you.

And I'll reiterate. If something is effecting you, and you can't detect it, that doesn't mean something is not effecting you. Athletes use undetectable drugs to great effect. You could slip them into their drinks and they can be effected without being detected. Didn't I say that in an earlier post? I think so!

If you can tell, then it is not irrational. Can you tell, or is it just faith?

It's definitely faith. Sometimes people say that they can tell. I guess you think they're wrong. But maybe they're right! I dunno.

It has to do with how we judge things to be effective. The only way to do so is to show the link between cause and effect. You can do this by showing the mechanics or you can do it statistically (perhaps some other ways). If you cannot link cause to effect, then you cannot say a certain thing (cause) is effective. What I keep hearing you and Bri say is that you personally need not be able to link cause (prayer) with effect (outcome) in order to believe that prayer is effective. I will continue to maintain that such a position is irrational.

It's a deal! And we'll continue to think it's rational! If we're wrong, oh well!

Oh sure, you can make detection of effectiveness difficult by seeding with false data, in this case the contents of the pills one is taking. It might take some time to uncover the mistake, but it could be uncovered.

Ah yes, I did say this already.

Good! I'm glad you brought up delay! We too believe in delay. We think evenutally we'll get all the details on how God answered our prayers!

And when it was, then the conclusion that the vitamins led to rapid growth would have to be thrown out. I'm not saying you can't be mistaken. All of us can in so many ways. But unless you agree that there is some way to judge effectiveness, then you are essentially saying that you don't know if a thing is effective.

But of course we believe there is a perfect judge who will judge effectiveness. We don't believe our contrived judgments have any effect on that.

And if you believe it without evidence, then that belief is irrational. That's just the way it is.

You have different standards than I do. If it's just the way it is, then it is objective rationality. Do you think that rationality exists independent of rational creatures? Just wondering. If yes, I've got a well-constituted arsenal of follow-ups, I've had this conversation with many people, but not recently, so maybe it's time to have it again. :)

Really, you and Bri shouldn't be so sensitive about being irrational about your religion. All honest people will admit that they are irrational about some things.

I'm becoming desensitized. :)

I mean really...who cares what you think about this, right? So you think it's irrational. That's that. That's it. There's nothing else to it than that. You've said it over and over and over again. And that's the extent. You can say it 398712 more times. And that would also be it. Just the repitition.

I have mentioned that if I shared your set of perspectives and standards I *may* also think as you do. But I'm not sure about that.

I'm being sensitive, of course, for a reason. I would prefer to have people consider me rational, as opposed to irrational. And like I said, I'm becoming desensitized to that, at least in this forum, with this topic.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Thus ignorance become evidence.

The absense of evidence can only be the absense of evidence. No more. No less. To think otherwise is to abandon logic and reason.

I think Bri was making a simple point, a very simple point. Simply this.

A. A person has *faith* that God exists.
B. There is not clear, indisputable evidence that God does, in fact, exist.
C. Therefore, a person who has *faith* that God exists could very well suspect, for good reason, that God does not want people to have clear, indisputable evidence, that God exists.

I think Bri just threw that out there, with no intention of saying anything further than that. Also, she isn't necessarily speaking from her perspective, but from the Christian perspective. Meaning, she's just giving a pretty accurate, and very simple, representation of how this shakes out.

It *does not follow* from this that ignorance becomes evidence. No. The faith comes first. The lack of evidence is not evidence for God...rather, it is significant, perhaps, to God's plan in how he wants to be known (or not known I guess).

The point that absence of evidence is anything more than that was not made in this. Because the position was *already* held, before point B was considered.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Yes.

Accepting the conclusion of any argument that "starts with" a nonsensical premise is itself nonsensical.

Ignoring whether or not the premise is nonsensical, it is abundantly clear that most posters in this forum assume that God exists in many conversations with theists (i.e. check every single long thread between theists and atheists, when atheists use theistic tenets and dogmas in order to facilitate a conversation). There can be much sense in doing such a thing, in my opinion, but you're free to disagree. Apparently you do?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

It's amazing how everything works to our benefit if we view it properly.

Exactly.

Odd thing is, if you don't pray you still get all of the benefits of prayer.

No, I don't think that people who don't pray do anything to build a relationship with God.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

And what of the person who prayed this (elliotfc's) prayer and won millions in lotto?

What is the name of that person?

I might be way off, but this stuff looks more like a certain political orientation than anything else.

Really? I don't see it.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Um... because they can be objectively demonstrated? Kinda like why chemistry is better than alchemy.

For certain things, sure. But chemistry works for certain things, and for other things it isn't useful or helpful.

Alchemy is actually helpful for certain things. It might be useful if you're writing a novel or something.

Maybe not science, but objectivity. Science is just a tool for finding objective truth.

Right, and as I've said a million times objective truth is not contingent on science and if there are objective truths that science can not detect that's just the way it is.

If you can't define successful results in advance, then you can't say it has produced successful results.

No. You actually *can* say it. It's pretty easy to say it.

You disagree. Oh well.

If you define what constitutes successful results after they have happened, then you can claim successful results for absolutely anything.
[political diversion]Both Israel and Hizbollah are claiming success in the war. If you had asked them a month ago what "success" meant, do you think either of them would have called this current situation "success"?[/political diversion]

I have no idea.

Can you claim successful results for absolutely anything? I think so.

How do you know what prayer *ought* to do? (Yes, I know the answer: Faith). Is there any reason why Christian faith is more reliable than other kind of faith? How can you tell?

Many people rely on their faith. As for other kinds of faith, many people rely on those faiths. I think the Christian faith is better because I prefer the dogmas to others. As for what religion has the most reliable faith, I have no idea, I'm not even that interetsed in that one. Let's say they are all equal, or maybe they're not. I dunno.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Okay then, accept god exists. Some scenarios:

1. God doesn't want us to see any evidence he exists.

Depends what is evidence. Many Christians think the Bible is evidence, but others don't think it is evidence.

I don't think there are very many Christians who think that there is *zero* evidence for God's existence. Probably a good percentage of agnostics believe thta.

2. God is so puny and feeble that even though he tries his hardest to make us aware of his existence, he can't.

I don't think you'd find more than 5 Christians who believe this. Probably less than 5.

3. Satan is so stong that he beats god down everytime god tries to let us know he exists.

See above.

4. God hates us and is hiding from us because he wants us to go burn in hell.

Ever see the movie Shatter Dead?

5. We all have invisible pink unicorns flying around our heads blocking out all signs of god's existence with their magic wings. (Of course you have to accept that the IPUs exist, but that's no different than accepting god exists, because there is the same amount of evidence.)

I don't think more than 5 Christians believe this.

Which of those doesn't follow Bri's "logic"? They are all equally possible if you are open-minded.

Right. We're talking from the Christian perspective.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I just don't see the point. If treatment for cancer can't be shown to work then why believe that it does?

I don't think God is commensurate to something like treatment for cancer.

We are going to suffer. We are going to die. This is the human condition. God allows for these realities. There are dogmas behind these realities. Prayer will not eliminate suffering and death *in the way we would have it do so*. We believe that all prayers are perfectly answered in Christ. Christ will do away with our suffering and death, but not in this life as it is.

Miracles are thus either a foretaste of things to come, signs of God's power, special interventions as part of a greater plan, etc. They are not the focal point of Christian belief (on a personal level, of course you could consider Jesus to be a miracle...and maybe you should, but whatever). If they were the focal point of Christian belief, I wouldn't be a Christian. We aren't saved by miracles, but by an event that happened 2000 years ago.

If I examine two groups of an equal number of people with cancer. Let's say 1000 in each group. And the rate of death is the same for both groups yet one group is religious and prays for cures and the other doesn't then what purpose does the prayer serve as it relates to miracles?

I've said several times that prayer brings us closer to God. Will we all die, and will we all suffer? Yes. Prayer will not do away with death and suffering. Now, from a certain perspective it actually *does*, for we believe that Christ was an answered prayer, but I don't think you're interested in that point.

If I can't discern which group of individuals believes in prayer from the other then what is the point of miracles?

I think they have particular points, and not general points. That's a very personal question. I think I had one event in my life which I consider to be miraculous. I don't think it has any point to anyone but myself. Nor do I expect it to. It happened to me. I don't obsess over it either. It happened.

Miracles appear to be things that happen to everyone whether we want them to or not. Whether we pray for them or not.

I think miracles can happen to people who don't pray for them. Sure.

I don't think that prayer is about miracles happening to people BTW, I'm not sure if that's the operating understanding behind this particular post.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I don't think rationality can be defined within a perspective.

If no perspectives existed, rationality could *not* be defined. Agreed?

If only one person existed, and the perspective of that person did not correspond to a perspective that you would consider to be rational, how would that person know that?

Crazy people are rational within the lunatic perspective.

I don't believe there is a singular lunatic perspecitive. I think many crazy people consider other crazy people to be crazy.

Christians have a built-in bias caused by their assumption that god exists.

I agree that Christians assume that god exists, and that such a belief is not crazy.

You cannot base a rational argument on an irrational assumption.

I think you can base rational arguments on *assumptions*. You say the assumption is irrational. Neato.

The "Christian perspective" includes an assumption for which there is no evidence. Anything built on this is invalid until the basic assumption is supported.

You say there is no evidence, and we disagree. Our evidence is either not good enough for you, or, you don't consider it to be evidence. Probably the latter.

I GET IT.

I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. Really. Feel free to repeat it though. Let's say you are correct. Great. That's wonderful. Nice one! Way to go. Put it on your tombstone, that you died rational as opposed to irrational. Cool.

-Elliot

[Ossai]

elliotfc
But we *do* require evidence, I don't think you're getting that. Our *kind* of evidence isn't the kind of evidence you are satisfied with, because you have a different way of handling this topic than do we. That would be because it’s not actually evidence. It’s wishful thinking and illogical assumptions.

Athletes use undetectable drugs to great effect. You could slip them into their drinks and they can be effected without being detected. Do you even read what you post. You just stated that athletes use undetectable drugs and that we can detect their effects. There is a connection not being made somewhere.

Apparently I’m still on elliotfc’s ignore list. So many questions, no answers.

Ossai

[Tricky]

For certain things, sure. But chemistry works for certain things, and for other things it isn't useful or helpful.
Well, all matter is made of "chemicals", so you could say that it works for everything. But this would be a serious derail.

Alchemy is actually helpful for certain things. It might be useful if you're writing a novel or something.
LOL. Yeah, it works if you're creating fiction. Come to think of it, alchemy and religion DO have a lot in common.:D


Right, and as I've said a million times objective truth is not contingent on science and if there are objective truths that science can not detect that's just the way it is.And as I have said a million times, objective truths do not vary from person to person. There is nothing that you or anyone else has told me about their religious belief that is not almost completely subjective.
No. You actually *can* say it. It's pretty easy to say it.Don't play these word games Elliot. I expect more of you.:(


Can you claim successful results for absolutely anything? I think so.
Yes you can. Will you be correct all the time? I think not. But this completely sidesteps the issue of how one determines what constitutes a successful result. You can't do it post-hoc.

Many people rely on their faith. As for other kinds of faith, many people rely on those faiths.
Yes, many people rely on their various faiths. My father in law is lying in the next room dying, in part because relied on his faith in Kevin Trudeau's book.

I think the Christian faith is better because I prefer the dogmas to others. As for what religion has the most reliable faith, I have no idea, I'm not even that interetsed in that one. Let's say they are all equal...

Okay, lets say all faiths are equal. So since they are all equal, faith, as a way of determining truth, is worthless, because there is no way of discrimminating between well-placed faith and poorly-placed faith.

...or maybe they're not. I dunno. Okay, lets say all faiths are not equal. How do you determine which one is closest to truth without relying on your preferred faith?

[drkitten]

I don't think God is commensurate to something like treatment for cancer.

I don't think so, either.

Cancer treatments exist.

Cancer treatments can be shown to exist.

It is not irrational to believe that cancer treatments exist.

[Tricky]

I don't think so, either.

Cancer treatments exist.

Cancer treatments can be shown to exist.

It is not irrational to believe that cancer treatments exist.
You forgot one.

Some cancer treatments can be shown to exist which actually are successful in treating cancer according to predefined parameters of success.

[RandFan]

I think Bri was making a simple point, a very simple point. Simply this.

A. A person has *faith* that God exists.
B. There is not clear, indisputable evidence that God does, in fact, exist.
C. Therefore, a person who has *faith* that God exists could very well suspect, for good reason, that God does not want people to have clear, indisputable evidence, that God exists.

I think Bri just threw that out there, with no intention of saying anything further than that. Also, she isn't necessarily speaking from her perspective, but from the Christian perspective. Meaning, she's just giving a pretty accurate, and very simple, representation of how this shakes out.

It *does not follow* from this that ignorance becomes evidence. No. The faith comes first. The lack of evidence is not evidence for God...rather, it is significant, perhaps, to God's plan in how he wants to be known (or not known I guess).

The point that absence of evidence is anything more than that was not made in this. Because the position was *already* held, before point B was considered.

-ElliotHey Elliot,

I'm sorry but there just is no cleaning this up.

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence. That is nonsensical no matter what position you take.

Bri is stating that assuming A is true, the fact that we don't know for certain that A is true is SOLID EVIDENCE of B. No. It isn't.

I understand your point. I really, really do. I understood Bri's point, I really, really do. In the end it is nonsensical. It is illogical and the flaw is not in the assumption that God exists. The absence of evidence is simply the absence of evidence. No more, no less, here or in bizzaro world. I'll have to re-read Alice in the looking glass but I'm not sure if it is even evidence there either.

[Bri]

We know intelligent life exists and we know elsewhere exists. It is therefore not irrational to consider the possibility that there is intelligent life elsewhere. It is no way proven, but a belief of this could in no way be considered irrational.

I agree, but the key word here is "possibility." It is also possible for God to exist, so it would in no way be considered irrational to consider the possibility. The problem is that there is no evidence at all that either actually exists. If you label one as "rational" then you would likely have to label the other as "rational" as well unless you have thought of some criteria to distinguish between the two that isn't based on speculation.


If you read Anacoluthon64s post a couple above yours this has already been explained.

I read it, and I don't see how it explains how Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational but other beliefs which are not based on solid evidence can be considered rational.

-Bri

[Bri]

That is quite possibly the most nonsensical thing I've ever read. I presume then that the fact that we don't know for certain that the Tooth Fairy exists is solid evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists. Wow, I bow in the face of this irrefuteable logic.:rolleyes:

Freethinker, please read the entire paragraph rather than choosing one sentence out of context. I wrote:


If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.


(emphasis added). This was based on the assumption that God exists, which Christians undoubtedly believe, and which is also undoubtedly implied in the Christian belief in prayer. IF God exists, his omnipotence would certainly include the power to ensure that we would know for certain of his existence. We don't know for certain that he exists, and therefore it follows that IF God exists, it is quite likely that he doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists.

-Bri

[RandFan]

I don't think God is commensurate to something like treatment for cancer.

We are going to suffer. We are going to die. This is the human condition. God allows for these realities. There are dogmas behind these realities. Prayer will not eliminate suffering and death *in the way we would have it do so*. We believe that all prayers are perfectly answered in Christ. Christ will do away with our suffering and death, but not in this life as it is.None of us want to suffer in this life. Yet many of us suffer far worse than others. One of the hallmarks of many Christians is to mitigate suffering in others. Christians don't simply accept suffering as a foregone conclusion for themselves or others.

"When you have done it unto the least of these my bretheren..." --Matthew 25:40

Miracles are thus either a foretaste of things to come, signs of God's power, special interventions as part of a greater plan, etc. They are not the focal point of Christian belief (on a personal level, of course you could consider Jesus to be a miracle...and maybe you should, but whatever). If they were the focal point of Christian belief, I wouldn't be a Christian. We aren't saved by miracles, but by an event that happened 2000 years ago. That's fine but understand that it is very much apart of scripture and testimony. People relate the things in their lives that they attribute to miracles. No one is disabusing them of that. The message or belief doesn't seem to be that life is suffering and death.

I've said several times that prayer brings us closer to God. Will we all die, and will we all suffer? Yes. Prayer will not do away with death and suffering. Now, from a certain perspective it actually *does*, for we believe that Christ was an answered prayer, but I don't think you're interested in that point.I'm happy to grant that prayer and the belief in salvation can bring comfort and hope.

I think they have particular points, and not general points. That's a very personal question. I think I had one event in my life which I consider to be miraculous. I don't think it has any point to anyone but myself. Nor do I expect it to. It happened to me. I don't obsess over it either. It happened.

I think miracles can happen to people who don't pray for them. Sure.

I don't think that prayer is about miracles happening to people BTW, I'm not sure if that's the operating understanding behind this particular post. I was watching live the unfolding scene of the miners trapped underground because of an explosion in VA. I think the families sincerely prayed for a miracle. I think they sincerely hoped for a miracle. I think they were ready to proclaim God's hand in this miracle. Sadly it did not come to pass.

The problem I have with miracles is that they are so arbitrary and faith has no demonstrable link to any of them. I think Christian rhetoric is multi faceted. Christians believe in and want miracles. They don't want to be subject to random and uncaring forces so they put a mysterious and caring being behind those forces but in the end they are still indistinguishable from random forces and there is no evidence that the force cares. Christians just believe because it makes them feel good. That's fine.

[Bri]

{sigh} :(

1.) I did not use the word necessarily. You did.

I didn't say you did. I said that we are in complete agreement. Why are you still arguing?

What "opinion" for which there is little or no evidence? My position on prayer is based on the laws of physics and reason as is the sun rising. If you ask me if I had a grandfather I would say yes. I can't prove it. Both are dead. If you said that I had over stated my case I would say no. If you said that I did not necessarily have a grandfather I would have to concede that YOUR view is possible since all things are possible and I could have been put here by aliens. It is NOT MY VIEW.

Again, there is plenty of evidence that you had grandparents. There is plenty of evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is little evidence that prayer never works.

It is not my view that prayer is not necessarily irrational.
It is not my view that the sun will not necessarily rise tomorrow.

Emphasis mine. Too many negatives. Yes or no: Is it your view that prayer is necessarily irrational?

"Absolute fact"? If you agree with P5 and P6 then why make this statement? You are being inconsistent. You either subscribe to P5 and P6 or you don't. If you do agree with P5 then stop saying "absolute fact" in the context of our discussion.

Again, we are in complete agreement (assuming you accept your own propositions). I agree with P5 and P6, that there is a difference between "fact" and "absolute fact" and that science doesn't generally deal with absolute facts.

P4 is simply a proposition. I DON'T hold it.

You don't accept your own propositions? Then why did you list them?

-Bri

[Tricky]

I agree, but the key word here is "possibility." It is also possible for God to exist, so it would in no way be considered irrational to consider the possibility. The problem is that there is no evidence at all that either actually exists. If you label one as "rational" then you would likely have to label the other as "rational" as well unless you have thought of some criteria to distinguish between the two that isn't based on speculation.
Nobody here says that it is irrational to believe in the possibility of some kind of God. I stated earlier that everything is posible except logical (including mathematical) contradictions. But believing in a God that answers prayers is irrational because it is not based on evidence.

Belief that something is possible even if there is no evidence - not irrational.
Belief that something exists for which there is no evidence - irrational

Try to remember that.

Belief that God exists is a completely different proposition from "some kind of God is possible". And it is a completely different proposition from "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe." We have evidence that a well-defined intelligent life can be shown to exist at least one place in the universe. We have evidence of a lot of universe. It is a great deal more likely than the existence of a God because there are no examples of a well-defined God that can be shown to exist in the universe.

[Bri]

It may also be effective if it does something that it was *not* intended to do. Many people say things like....boy, I prayed for this, but I got that...and "that" was what I really needed after all!

When I said that a prayer is effective if it accomplishes what it is intended to accomplish, I meant if it accomplishes what God intends for it to accomplish. This is based on the assumption that Christians believe that prayers are accomplished by God.

There aren't any Christians participating in this thread! Besides me! I'm speaking from that perspective. And I think you're accurately representing it, as far as you are choosing to do so.

Well, I don't profess to know or understand all Christian beliefs. As you know, I'm not a Christian, so I can only go on what I have read or know first hand from Christians. I'm glad to hear from at least one Christian that I'm not terribly far off.

-Bri

[Bri]

Thus ignorance become evidence.

The absense of evidence can only be the absense of evidence. No more. No less. To think otherwise is to abandon logic and reason.

I don't recall saying that ignorance was evidence. I only said that it was a lack of evidence. Please at least base your arguments on what I've said rather than what you wish I had said.

-Bri

[Bri]

Accepting the conclusion of any argument that "starts with" a nonsensical premise is itself nonsensical.

I agree, but we are discussing Christian belief in this thread. Christians undoubtedly believe that God exists if they believe in prayer. It also would follow that many (if not all) Christians probably also believe that God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Therefore, absence of evidence that prayer works isn't evidence that prayer doesn't work -- it's only a lack of evidence that it does.

-Bri

[Bri]

That the absense of any evidence is evidence of something is non-sensical in every sense.

I don't think elliotfc would disagree with that (nor did he say otherwise). I think he said that absence of any evidence that prayer works is NOT evidence that prayer doesn't work. Others were holding that absence of evidence is evidence that prayer doesn't work. Thanks for clarifying elliotfc's point though.

-Bri

[RandFan]

I don't recall saying that ignorance was evidence. I only said that it was a lack of evidence. Please at least base your arguments on what I've said rather than what you wish I had said. Let's look at what you have said.

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence. (emphasis mine) So, it is a fact that "we don't know for certain", right?

ig·no·rance (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorance) (2nd entry)

n: the lack of knowledge To not "know for certain" is to lack knowledge.

[Bri]

Bri is stating that assuming A is true, the fact that we don't know for certain that A is true is SOLID EVIDENCE of B. No. It isn't.

Again, I was simply defending the fact that Christians likely would agree that God doesn't want us to know of his existence, and therefore we wouldn't expect there to be evidence of prayer working.

I did NOT in any way imply that this was solid evidence of anything. In fact, I said that it was a lack of evidence, and nothing more. In fact, I have held all along that there is little to no evidence that prayer works. Likewise, there is little to no evidence that prayer never works.

-Bri

[Tricky]

When I said that a prayer is effective if it accomplishes what it is intended to accomplish, I meant if it accomplishes what God intends for it to accomplish. This is based on the assumption that Christians believe that prayers are accomplished by God.
So let's see what we have here.

You can't tell if it was accomplished.
you can't tell what God intends.
You can't tell if your assumptions have merit.
All three of these things are based on faith and faith alone. By definition, any belief that is based on faith and faith alone is irrational. (And before you go there, accepting a possibility is not a "belief". I accept the possibility that gravity will not work tomorrow. I do not believe that gravity will not work tomorrow.)

[Bri]

Nobody here says that it is irrational to believe in the possibility of some kind of God. I stated earlier that everything is posible except logical (including mathematical) contradictions. But believing in a God that answers prayers is irrational because it is not based on evidence.

Likewise, belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is not based on evidence. The only evidence is that intelligent life is possible elsewhere in the galaxy. Anything else is based upon pure speculation since we don't know exactly what conditions give rise to intelligent life. Specifically, we don't know how precise conditions must be to those of our planet in order for another planet to give rise to intelligent life.



Belief that something is possible even if there is no evidence - not irrational.
Belief that something exists for which there is no evidence - irrational

Try to remember that.


I'll do my best to remember that, but you remember that you're defining belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy to be irrational. I happen to disagree with those criteria, because I don't think all such beliefs are irrational.

Belief that God exists is a completely different proposition from "some kind of God is possible". And it is a completely different proposition from "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe." We have evidence that a well-defined intelligent life can be shown to exist at least one place in the universe. We have evidence of a lot of universe. It is a great deal more likely than the existence of a God because there are no examples of a well-defined God that can be shown to exist in the universe.

And yet, all the evidence only shows that it is possible that intelligent life may exist elsewhere, not that it actually does. Unless you can provide an example of intelligent life that exists elsewhere, that is.

-Bri

[Bri]

Let's look at what you have said.

(emphasis mine) So, it is a fact that "we don't know for certain", right?

To not "know for certain" is to lack knowledge.

Yes, it is a fact that we don't know for certain that God exists. Yes, by your definition we are both ignorant of whether God exists and of whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. What's your point?

-Bri

[Tricky]

Likewise, there is little to no evidence that prayer never works.
When you start trying to defend "proving a negative" as a logical point, then you've gone over the edge.


There is little to no evidence that rubbing a rabbit's foot has never caused good luck.
There is little to no evidence that Thor has never caused thunder and lightning.
There is little to no evidence that elephants have never mated with pigmy shrews.
There is little to no evidence that gravity has never reversed itself.
There is little to no evidence that monkeys have never flown out of my butt.


What else besides prayer would you consider it rational to believe simply because there is no evidence that it has never happened?

[Bri]

So let's see what we have here.

You can't tell if it was accomplished.
you can't tell what God intends.
You can't tell if your assumptions have merit.
All three of these things are based on faith and faith alone. By definition, any belief that is based on faith and faith alone is irrational. (And before you go there, accepting a possibility is not a "belief". I accept the possibility that gravity will not work tomorrow. I do not believe that gravity will not work tomorrow.)

Christians do have evidence that God exists and that prayer works, but it may not be strong evidence. In fact, all opinions are based on some amount of faith (otherwise they wouldn't be opinions). I'm assuming that you're using the term "based on faith" to mean beliefs for which there is little evidence. I disagree that any belief that is based on faith is irrational since I think the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is rational.

-Bri

[Bri]

What else besides prayer would you consider it rational to believe simply because there is no evidence that it has never happened?

Christians don't believe in prayer simply because there is no evidence that it never happened.

-Bri

[Tricky]

I'll do my best to remember that, but you remember that you're defining belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy to be irrational. I happen to disagree with those criteria, because I don't think all such beliefs are irrational.
You can't throw out the example of life we have. If you do, then you could just as easily throw out the second example (if it was found) and the third ad infinitum. Once a thing is shown to be possible in one place, the liklihood of it existing in another place is dramatically increased.

See if this example works for you.

I have found earthworms in my lawn. I have studied them closely and I know a lot about their characteristics. But I am not allowed to leave the yard so I have never closely examined any other lawns. As far as I know, they may be different vastly from my lawn. But since I know that earthworms can exist in lawns, it is not irrational to believe that they can exist in other lawns.

I have never found a cherub in my lawn. I have never seen one, examined one and I don't know the characteristics of and I have no evidence that they exist anywhere, other than some people talking about them. It is irrational to believe that cherubs may exist in other lawns.

[RandFan]

I didn't say you did. I said that we are in complete agreement. Why are you still arguing? If we are in complete agreement why are you disputing what I'm saying?

Again, there is plenty of evidence that you had grandparents. There is plenty of evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is little evidence that prayer never works. There is evidence that prayer doesn't work.

Your comparison is flawed because you are comparing the wrong concepts.

It is possible that prayer works.
It is possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow.That #1 & #2 are both possible is not a reason to ad a provision to the following statements.

The Sun will rise tomorrow.
Prayer is irrational.Yes or no: Is it your view that prayer is necessarily irrational?No more and no less than the view that the sun necessarily will rise.

I would not use the term "necessarily" for either statement. However, If you do I don't object.

Again, we are in complete agreement (assuming you accept your own propositions). I agree with P5 and P6, that there is a difference between "fact" and "absolute fact" and that science doesn't generally deal with absolute facts. Your statements belie you. If you accept P5 and P6 then there is no reason to question whether I believe that prayer is "necessarily irrational".

You don't accept your own propositions? Then why did you list them? It's possible to list propositions to make a point. I confess that in that last statement I failed to make a clear point. The notion that all things are possible and therefore nothing is necessarily impossible is confusing.

I don't see the need to view any possibility as necessarily possible or the inverse, not necessarily impossible.

If I say the sun will rise tomorrow then I hold that position provisionally and it would be be perverse to withhold my consent.

[Tricky]

Christians don't believe in prayer simply because there is no evidence that it never happened.

-Bri
I know. But their beliefs are irrational unless they are based on evidence that it did happen. It is irrational because it is belief based on faith alone.

You were the one who threw out the the "there is no evidence that prayer never works." That is irrational too, but for a different reason. It is irrational because uses the the impossibility of verifying an infinite number of negatives as evidence of the positive.

And yeah, Christians try this tack from time to time too.

[RandFan]

Yes, it is a fact that we don't know for certain that God exists. Yes, by your definition we are both ignorant of whether God exists and of whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. What's your point? Again, let's look at what you said.

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence. Lack of knowledge is not evidence of anything.

...whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy.No one is arguing that lack of knowledge is evidence of inteligent life elswhere in the galaxy, unless I missed it. But if they did, you let me know and I will give 'em hell. Fair enough?

[RandFan]

Again, I was simply defending the fact that Christians likely would agree that God doesn't want us to know of his existence, and therefore we wouldn't expect there to be evidence of prayer working. That's not what you said. If you had I wouldn't have responded.

Here, let's look at it again.

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence..."Don't know" "is solid evidence". It sure looks like you did say that lack of knowledge is evidence.

I did NOT in any way imply that this was solid evidence of anything.:rolleyes: I beg to differ.

[Ossai]

Bri
There is little evidence that prayer never works. Sorry, but that is not how it works. You are declaring prayer effective, therefore you must provide evidence to support your position.

When I said that a prayer is effective if it accomplishes what it is intended to accomplish, I meant if it accomplishes what God intends for it to accomplish.
Moving the goalposts, again. At lease you clearly state it this time as you move it squarely to the post-hoc rationalization section of the field.

I agree, but we are discussing Christian belief in this thread. Christians undoubtedly believe that God exists if they believe in prayer. It also would follow that many (if not all) Christians probably also believe that God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Then explain the thousands upon thousands of Christians flocking to the latest ‘Virgin Mary’ sighting, or weeping statue, or nun in a bun, or …


To everyone except Bri.
Bri is spending so much time running in circles that there is no demonstrable advancement. At this point it may be best to hit the basics and make sure she actually understands them.
Actually define evidence, logical fallacies, faith, trust, belief, etc or at least provide a few links that she may read.

Ossai

[elliotfc]

Okay, lets say all faiths are equal. So since they are all equal, faith, as a way of determining truth, is worthless, because there is no way of discrimminating between well-placed faith and poorly-placed faith.

I don't think that faith *is* a way of determining truth, nor have I ever tried to advance that notion.

Okay, lets say all faiths are not equal. How do you determine which one is closest to truth without relying on your preferred faith?

Or how *did* I. I didn't have a faith, and then I did. I dunno. I examined several different faiths. Then I picked one.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I don't think so, either.

Cancer treatments exist.

Cancer treatments can be shown to exist.

It is not irrational to believe that cancer treatments exist.

I disagree with nothing you said above, but I was trying to suggest that God is more like a person, or a personality, than he is a procedure.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Bri is stating that assuming A is true, the fact that we don't know for certain that A is true is SOLID EVIDENCE of B. No. It isn't.

I disagree.

I understand your point. I really, really do. I understood Bri's point, I really, really do. In the end it is nonsensical. It is illogical and the flaw is not in the assumption that God exists. The absence of evidence is simply the absence of evidence. No more, no less, here or in bizzaro world. I'll have to re-read Alice in the looking glass but I'm not sure if it is even evidence there either.

I disagree. Don't have anything further to add on this end.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

I read it, and I don't see how it explains how Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational but other beliefs which are not based on solid evidence can be considered rational.

When it comes to many posters in this thread, I do recognize that it *IS* necessary to believe that Christian belief in prayer is irrational.

-Elliot

[Tricky]

When it comes to many posters in this thread, I do recognize that it *IS* necessary to believe that Christian belief in prayer is irrational.

-Elliot
It is not "necessary", but since it fits the definition of irrational, it makes sense to call prayer irrational. Why should we rewrite definitions because some Christians don't like them?

[Anacoluthon64]

To everyone except Bri.
Bri is spending so much time running in circles that there is no demonstrable advancement. At this point it may be best to hit the basics and make sure she actually understands them.
Actually define evidence, logical fallacies, faith, trust, belief, etc or at least provide a few links that she may read.Seconded, although it is IMO futile to expect that any contrary argument, however basic or compelling, will be met with something other than slipperiness of the semantic pedantry, misrepresentation, speciousness and/or affected deficiency-of-understanding varieties. Though based on much empirical evidence, I may, of course, be wrong.

'Luthon64

[Tricky]

I don't think that faith *is* a way of determining truth, nor have I ever tried to advance that notion.
Here is where we differ. I want the things I believe in to be true.

Or how *did* I. I didn't have a faith, and then I did. I dunno. I examined several different faiths. Then I picked one. And it is telling that you picked the one which is most common in your culture and with which (I am guessing) you are most familiar and comfortable. Though your version of Christianity varies a bit from most others I have seen (in a good way :D), it is well within the cultural norm.

[elliotfc]

None of us want to suffer in this life. Yet many of us suffer far worse than others. One of the hallmarks of many Christians is to mitigate suffering in others. Christians don't simply accept suffering as a foregone conclusion for themselves or others.

Yes and no. Christ calls us to be perfect, yet none of us are perfect. We set the highest possible standards, we will never reach those standards, yet we still have the highest possible standards.

You are correct, I don't accept suffering as in...I walk down the street and I see a kid bleeding to death and I ignore it. In that way I don't accept suffering. I do accept suffering in the sense that I know that I can work my whole life to fight suffering and there will still be suffering.

"When you have done it unto the least of these my bretheren..." --Matthew 25:40

Well this is more of an active deal. I certainly wasn't suggesting that in accepting suffering (and I've explained that), I'm now free to actively hurt other people, willfully and with the intent to make them suffer.

I was watching live the unfolding scene of the miners trapped underground because of an explosion in VA. I think the families sincerely prayed for a miracle. I think they sincerely hoped for a miracle. I think they were ready to proclaim God's hand in this miracle. Sadly it did not come to pass.

This is a uncommon and visible tragedy. In less intense and more private tragedies, the same could be said.

My point remains. Christians understand that we will all suffer and die. Miracles *will not* invalidate this. Also, the most compelling tragic events will not be invalidated while others will be allowed. Things will unfold as they unfold, in this life of ours.

Do I ask you to agree with this? No, of course not, I know you reject my premises. But the Christian understanding is what it is. There is no internal disfunctionality in our beliefs. It may *manifest* itself in any given situation, just as we may *commit an act of sin* in any given situation.

The problem I have with miracles is that they are so arbitrary...

Arbitrary in the sense that God is the deciding factor, yes. Arbitrary in that we can't possibly produce a template that God would follow in performing miracles.

...and faith has no demonstrable link to any of them.

This is probably irrelevant to those who would disagree if only from personal experience.

Also, it could be demonstrable, but that would depend on your chosen standards of demonstrability.

I think Christian rhetoric is multi faceted. Christians believe in and want miracles. They don't want to be subject to random and uncaring forces so they put a mysterious and caring being behind those forces but in the end they are still indistinguishable from random forces and there is no evidence that the force cares.

Yet I think we DO IN FACT BELIEVE that we are subject to...well...at least uncaring forces...but also random forces as well. So I don't have anything to make of this point, since I reject the premise. As for "wanting" to be, or not "wanting" to be, I think that is irrelevant, and I could say the same thing about you. Everything you believe is because you want to believe it, and the things you don't believe you don't want to believe. This is not helpful at all in my opinion. Is it true? Sure, and if so, it's true for everybody. But you as an individual would disagree? And what if a Christian as an individual would disagree. Thus the unhelpfulness.

Christians just believe because it makes them feel good. That's fine.

I think you believe that just because it makes *you* feel good.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Nobody here says that it is irrational to believe in the possibility of some kind of God. I stated earlier that everything is posible except logical (including mathematical) contradictions. But believing in a God that answers prayers is irrational because it is not based on evidence.

Belief that something is possible even if there is no evidence - not irrational.
Belief that something exists for which there is no evidence - irrational

Try to remember that.

OK...the possibility of some kind of God...that's *not* irrational. Is there evidence for that? Most people say no...but it's still not an irrational belief.

And...the possibility that God answers prayers...that's irrational. Is there evidence that God answers prayers? Most people say no....but it's still an irrational belief.

I don't get the distinction. I'll remember it Tricky, but I don't get it.

Belief that God exists is a completely different proposition from "some kind of God is possible".

Define God. And when you do that, you've just proposed that some kind of God is possible. Why? Because others will define God differently.

And it is a completely different proposition from "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe." We have evidence that a well-defined intelligent life can be shown to exist at least one place in the universe. We have evidence of a lot of universe. It is a great deal more likely than the existence of a God because there are no examples of a well-defined God that can be shown to exist in the universe.

I don't think that existence is contingent upon our definitions to define what we can't define. We can't define *other* intelligent life elsewhere in the universe just because we can define intelligent life here. You *say* we can define intelligent life elsewhere, and that's just bluster.

Meaning...actually do it then. Actually define intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, with all the specs and all the trimmings.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Thanks for the thread folks, I'm no longer interested in debating the rationality of prayer, but I'm OK with everyone who thinks its irrational, because it doesn't really matter, does it?. -Elliot

[Tricky]

Thanks for the thread folks, I'm no longer interested in debating the rationality of prayer, but I'm OK with everyone who thinks its irrational, because it doesn't really matter, does it?. -Elliot
So long Elliot. See you in other threads.

But yes, it DOES matter. It matters a great deal. If a person decides to use prayer as a way of solving problems (for example, curing a disease) then it is extremely important that the prayer works. This is especially important if they forgo well-established medical procedures in favor of prayer.

If prayer doesn't work, it is important to know that.

[Tricky]

OK...the possibility of some kind of God...that's *not* irrational. Is there evidence for that? Most people say no...but it's still not an irrational belief.

And...the possibility that God answers prayers...that's irrational. Is there evidence that God answers prayers? Most people say no....but it's still an irrational belief.

I don't get the distinction. I'll remember it Tricky, but I don't get it.
There are an infinite number of possibilities. Therefore is incorrect to say something (other than a logical contradiction) is impossible because one cannot examine an infinite number of things. However, something can be highly improbable based on (non-infinite) evidence. To believe in something that is highly improbable is irrational. I know you're outta here, but I thought I'd try to clarify that first.


Define God. And when you do that, you've just proposed that some kind of God is possible. Why? Because others will define God differently.
That's the thing. "Some kind of God" is undefined. It has an unbounded number of possibilities. But as soon as you give definitions to God, then you create bounded, testable hypotheses. Each different way that other people define God can be tested by saying "is there any evidence for a thing which fits this definition?"

I don't think that existence is contingent upon our definitions to define what we can't define. We can't define *other* intelligent life elsewhere in the universe just because we can define intelligent life here. You *say* we can define intelligent life elsewhere, and that's just bluster.

Meaning...actually do it then. Actually define intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, with all the specs and all the trimmings.

We have definitions of "life". We have definitions of "intelligent". If you find something that fits both definitions, then you have intelligent life. Note that SETI is the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Not the search for intelligent life. They might be able to tell the intelligent part from radio signals and such, but they couldn't tell the "life" part without closer examination.

[Freethinker]

Bri, I did read the whole thing. I just quoted the part where your logic jumped the tracks. Look at these two quotes:


If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.





We don't know for certain that he exists, and therefore it follows that IF God exists, it is quite likely that he doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists.





They are substantially different. I wouldn't argue too much with the logical soundness of the second, but I'll reiterate that the first is nonsensical. The fact that we don't know for certain that god exists is solid evidence for one thing only: That we aren't aware of any solid evidence that he does exist.

The bible is full of instances where god made himself known to both believers and unbelievers. Then he just quit. Puzzling, isn't it? It's only puzzling from a "Christian perspective" as Elliot calls it. It's puzzling to Christians, but atheists aren't the least bit puzzled by it. He quit appearing because people became less gullible and didn't believe the outlandish stories that had no evidence anymore. Very much similar to the fact that there hasn't been a huge increase in the number of UFO or bigfoot pictures in the last few years with everybody and their brother owning a camcorder and carrying a camera phone with them all of the time.
I truly doubt your point that very many Christians think god doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Church newsletters are full of people giving glory to god for the strength he gave them to get through the horrible ordeal of rebuilding their home after the tornado god sent destroyed it. The largest Christian denomination believes to this day that human beings can perform (or at least get god to perform) miracles. Miracles would of course be directly answered prayers that did exactly what the saint-in-waiting (or priest in the case of transubstantiation) asked god for.

The whole "god doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence" deal is just a copout to explain why god doesn't appear in burning bushes or directly intercede in the lives of humans anymore. Just another way of saying the ultimate Christian copout: "God works in mysterious ways."

[Bri]

You can't throw out the example of life we have.

Of course not. Life we have (ours) is evidence that it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. But it is not evidence that life does exist elsewhere in the galaxy.


If you do, then you could just as easily throw out the second example (if it was found) and the third ad infinitum. Once a thing is shown to be possible in one place, the liklihood of it existing in another place is dramatically increased.

Not necessarily. If something exists in one place, it shows that it is possible in another place. However, we don't know why or how intelligent life exists here, and therefore we have no reason to believe that it exists elsewhere.

See if this example works for you.

I have found earthworms in my lawn. I have studied them closely and I know a lot about their characteristics. But I am not allowed to leave the yard so I have never closely examined any other lawns. As far as I know, they may be different vastly from my lawn. But since I know that earthworms can exist in lawns, it is not irrational to believe that they can exist in other lawns.

If you had never seen another lawn with worms, then you would have no idea what range of conditions are necessary to support worm life. You would therefore have no reason to assume that other lawns existed that could support worm life, aside from sheer speculation.

I have never found a cherub in my lawn. I have never seen one, examined one and I don't know the characteristics of and I have no evidence that they exist anywhere, other than some people talking about them. It is irrational to believe that cherubs may exist in other lawns.

It is just as rational to believe that cherubs exist in other lawns as in your lawn (since you've never seen one anywhere). However, whether it is rational or irrational to believe that cherubs exist in any lawn (including yours) would depend on the belief and the reasons for holding it.

-Bri

[Bri]

If we are in complete agreement why are you disputing what I'm saying?

I'm not. I believe I said that we are in complete agreement.

There is evidence that prayer doesn't work.

There is evidence that prayer doesn't work ALL the time.

There is no evidence that prayer NEVER works.

Your comparison is flawed because you are comparing the wrong concepts.

It is possible that prayer works.
It is possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow.That #1 & #2 are both possible is not a reason to ad a provision to the following statements.

The Sun will rise tomorrow.
Prayer is irrational.


I agree. Both are opinions, but only one is based on strong evidence.

No more and no less than the view that the sun necessarily will rise.

I agree. Both are entirely false. Since you've already admitted that the sun won't necessarily rise tomorrow, I'll take your answer as a "no" (that belief in prayer is not necessarily irrational). Again, we are in agreement.

I would not use the term "necessarily" for either statement. However, If you do I don't object.

I don't, so no need to object.

Your statements belie you. If you accept P5 and P6 then there is no reason to question whether I believe that prayer is "necessarily irrational".

Your comments throughout this thread were reason to question whether you believe that prayer is necessarily irrational. If you had simply agreed earlier that belief in prayer isn't necessarily irrational rather than disagreeing, then the thread would have been much shorter.

It's possible to list propositions to make a point. I confess that in that last statement I failed to make a clear point. The notion that all things are possible and therefore nothing is necessarily impossible is confusing.

I don't see the need to view any possibility as necessarily possible or the inverse, not necessarily impossible.

If I say the sun will rise tomorrow then I hold that position provisionally and it would be be perverse to withhold my consent.

OK. Well, it sounds as though you agree with your provisions, but I'll admit that I'm still confused about that. If there's one that you don't agree with, please let us know why.

-Bri

[drkitten]

When it comes to many posters in this thread, I do recognize that it *IS* necessary to believe that Christian belief in prayer is irrational.

Only in the sense that it *IS* necessary to believe that seven is a prime number, or that six is an even number, or that insects, taxonomically, have six legs.

Words have meanings. It *IS* necessary to know and apply those meanings to use the words correctly.

[Tricky]

Of course not. Life we have (ours) is evidence that it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. But it is not evidence that life does exist elsewhere in the galaxy. The existence of a single example dramatically increases the probability of other examples.

Not necessarily. If something exists in one place, it shows that it is possible in another place. However, we don't know why or how intelligent life exists here, and therefore we have no reason to believe that it exists elsewhere.
As I've said over and over again, everything except logical contradictions is possible. We are dealing in probabilities. See above.

If you had never seen another lawn with worms, then you would have no idea what range of conditions are necessary to support worm life. You would therefore have no reason to assume that other lawns existed that could support worm life, aside from sheer speculation.
You would know that worms existed in your lawn. You would know that other lawns (that from a distance resembled yours) existed. It would not be "sheer speculation". It would be a data-supported extrapolation.

It is just as rational to believe that cherubs exist in other lawns as in your lawn (since you've never seen one anywhere). However, whether it is rational or irrational to believe that cherubs exist in any lawn (including yours) would depend on the belief and the reasons for holding it.
Is it just as rational to believe that cherubs exist as that worms exist on other lawns? One is based on no evidence. One is based on an extrapolation of evidence. I'm hoping you realize this important difference and that you are just arguing for the sake of being contentious, but so far, I have no evidence for that.

[RandFan]

Well this is more of an active deal. I certainly wasn't suggesting that in accepting suffering (and I've explained that), I'm now free to actively hurt other people, willfully and with the intent to make them suffer. This has nothing to do with my point.

This is a uncommon and visible tragedy. In less intense and more private tragedies, the same could be said. We agree, the same could be said...

My point remains. Christians understand that we will all suffer and die. Miracles *will not* invalidate this. Also, the most compelling tragic events will not be invalidated while others will be allowed. Things will unfold as they unfold, in this life of ours.And things will unfold as they unfold whether we believe in God or not.

Do I ask you to agree with this? No, of course not, I know you reject my premises. But the Christian understanding is what it is. There is no internal disfunctionality in our beliefs. It may *manifest* itself in any given situation, just as we may *commit an act of sin* in any given situation. We very much disagree. First off I don't think Christian "understanding" is monolithic. Hardly. Christian belief is many things. Many do hope for miracles. Many hope that if the are struck with an affliction that God will intercede on their behalf.

Arbitrary in the sense that God is the deciding factor, yes. Arbitrary in that we can't possibly produce a template that God would follow in performing miracles. Arbitrary is arbitrary. We can say that God is the deciding factor but that really doesn't mean anything. It's still arbitrary.

This is probably irrelevant to those who would disagree if only from personal experience. I don't doubt, the people that pay the millions for ineffective cures would also disagree from personal experience.

Also, it could be demonstrable, but that would depend on your chosen standards of demonstrability. I don't agree.

Yet I think we DO IN FACT BELIEVE that we are subject to...well...at least uncaring forces...but also random forces as well. So I don't have anything to make of this point, since I reject the premise. As for "wanting" to be, or not "wanting" to be, I think that is irrelevant, and I could say the same thing about you. Everything you believe is because you want to believe it, and the things you don't believe you don't want to believe. This is not helpful at all in my opinion. Is it true? Sure, and if so, it's true for everybody. But you as an individual would disagree? And what if a Christian as an individual would disagree. Thus the unhelpfulness. But this isn't true. I want to believe in God. I would love for there to be a God. The realization that there simply was no reason other than wanting to believe in God was tragic and sad for me.

I think you believe that just because it makes *you* feel good.No, I believe that because I made a commitment to accept truth no matter what that truth was.

[Bri]

I know. But their beliefs are irrational unless they are based on evidence that it did happen.

The Christian belief in prayer is based on evidence that it does happen. Even if it wasn't, I don't know that it would be irrational since belief that there is intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy isn't irrational despite a lack of evidence that it does exist.

It is irrational because it is belief based on faith alone.

Perhaps I don't know what you mean by "based on faith alone." I don't see that it is based on any less evidence than the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy. Both are based on speculation.

You were the one who threw out the the "there is no evidence that prayer never works." That is irrational too, but for a different reason. It is irrational because uses the the impossibility of verifying an infinite number of negatives as evidence of the positive.

And yeah, Christians try this tack from time to time too.

Please let me be VERY clear on this. I've stated it several times already. I have not said, nor do I believe, that the lack of evidence that prayer never works constitutes evidence that it does work. I'll repeat: A LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE OPPOSITE POSITION. Attempting to attribute that ridiculous concept to me is a straw man.

Although I don't doubt that some Christians have tried this tack from time to time, I have not.

-Bri

[Bri]

Again, let's look at what you said.

Lack of knowledge is not evidence of anything.

I've already responded to this. Once again, you might try to avoid taking what I said out of context. Here's the entirety of what I said:

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.


(emphasis added) This was in response to Tricky, and my point was simply that Christian belief in prayer often (if not always) includes the belief that God doesn't want us to know of his existence. In no way did I mean to imply that absence of evidence is evidence -- only that absence of evidence might be expected, and therefore wouldn't constitute evidence of the opposite position.


No one is arguing that lack of knowledge is evidence of inteligent life elswhere in the galaxy, unless I missed it. But if they did, you let me know and I will give 'em hell. Fair enough?

Fair enough, since I agree completely and have never said otherwise.

-Bri

[Bri]

That's not what you said. If you had I wouldn't have responded.

I wish you had actually looked at what I actually said. See the previous post.

-Bri

[RandFan]

There is evidence that prayer doesn't work ALL the time.

There is no evidence that prayer NEVER works.The point that there is no evidence that prayer never works is silly and beside the point.

I agree. Both are opinions, but only one is based on strong evidence.No, that is not correct. Lacking any evidence to the contrary and understanding that prayer would fly in the face of all that we understand then it would be perverse for me to withhold provisional consent to the notion that prayer is irrational.

Your comments throughout this thread were reason to question whether you believe that prayer is necessarily irrational. I have been clear and concise from the beginning and I resent this. If you have a problem with comprehension then that is your problem. I have stated over and over that I hold all things provisionally. I have stated over and over that all things that are not logically impossible are possible.

If you had simply agreed earlier that belief in prayer isn't necessarily irrational rather than disagreeing, then the thread would have been much shorter.No. This all started when you said that I had overstated my case. I had not overstated my case. I would not use the provision "not necessarily irrational" because it simply clouds the issue and does not represent my view. Since all things are possible it can be said that nothing is necessarily impossible. But to make that point is really meaningless. Invisible unicorns are possible. There's little point to stating that they are not necessarily impossible. School text books don't make the point that all things are possible and therefore all sorts of bizarre notions are necessarily impossible.

Prayer is irrational.
There are no invisible unicorns.
There are no faeries.
There are no leprechauns.
There are no demons under my bed.
Aliens don't take you away every night to anal probe you.
The real does exist.

The inverse of all of these things are possible. I'm not overstating my case to reject any of them them and I don't need to add a provision that none of them are necessarily impossible. That has been my position from the beginning and it will remain my position whether you like it or not or whether you understand it or not.

[Bri]

Bri, I did read the whole thing. I just quoted the part where your logic jumped the tracks. Look at these two quotes:

They are substantially different.

No they're not, since the second is a clarification of what I meant in case you misunderstood the first.

I wouldn't argue too much with the logical soundness of the second, but I'll reiterate that the first is nonsensical. The fact that we don't know for certain that god exists is solid evidence for one thing only: That we aren't aware of any solid evidence that he does exist.

I completely agree. Please note that the original statement includes the proposition "If God exists" at the beginning. My point to Tricky was exactly the same point that you're making: that a lack of solid evidence isn't evidence at all -- it's simply a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence that prayer works isn't evidence that prayer works, nor is it evidence that prayer never works.

The whole "god doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence" deal is just a copout to explain why god doesn't appear in burning bushes or directly intercede in the lives of humans anymore. Just another way of saying the ultimate Christian copout: "God works in mysterious ways."

While I tend to agree, the belief that "God works in mysterious ways" isn't at all inconsistent with the Christian notion of God.

-Bri

[RandFan]

I've already responded to this. Once again, you might try to avoid taking what I said out of context. Here's the entirety of what I said:

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence. And I have explained to you that the conditional changes nothing. Ignorance is ignorance and is evidence of nothing. See bolded text. What does "the fact that we don't know...is solid evidence" mean.

In no way did I mean to imply that absence of evidence is evidence -- only that absence of evidence might be expected, and therefore wouldn't constitute evidence of the opposite position. YES YOU DID!

Lood at your words. "is solid evidence". What does "is solid evidence" mean.

[RandFan]

I wish you had actually looked at what I actually said. See the previous post. I wish you would actually look at your post. The fact that you use a hypothetical does not change the facts.

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence. Using a conditional does not fix the bolded line.

You clearly state that our ignorance is proof of something.

[Bri]

The existence of a single example dramatically increases the probability of other examples.

Only if you make certain speculations. There is no way to calculate the probability of other examples without speculating as to what might and might not be necessary for intelligent life to emerge.


As I've said over and over again, everything except logical contradictions is possible. We are dealing in probabilities. See above.

I know, yet you keep pointing out evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere rather than evidence of ingelligent life elsewhere.


You would know that worms existed in your lawn. You would know that other lawns (that from a distance resembled yours) existed. It would not be "sheer speculation". It would be a data-supported extrapolation.

I might know that other lawns existed, but it would be sheer speculation on my part as to how similar those other lawns are to my lawn. I would also have to speculate on how the exact the conditions would have to be to my lawn in order to support the worms.

Is it just as rational to believe that cherubs exist as that worms exist on other lawns? One is based on no evidence. One is based on an extrapolation of evidence. I'm hoping you realize this important difference and that you are just arguing for the sake of being contentious, but so far, I have no evidence for that.

I have no way of calculating how rational or irrational either belief is since there is little evidence of either.

-Bri

[Bri]

Prayer is irrational.
There are no invisible unicorns.
There are no faeries.
There are no leprechauns.
There are no demons under my bed.
Aliens don't take you away every night to anal probe you.
The real does exist.

The inverse of all of these things are possible. I'm not overstating my case to reject any of them them and I don't need to add a provision that none of them are necessarily impossible. That has been my position from the beginning and it will remain my position whether you like it or not or whether you understand it or not.

All of these are, of course, your opinion. When you said that "belief in prayer is irrational" isn't just your opinion, you were certainly overstating your case.

Otherwise, I think we are in agreement according to your recent posts.

-Bri

[Bri]

And I have explained to you that the conditional changes nothing. Ignorance is ignorance and is evidence of nothing. See bolded text. What does "the fact that we don't know...is solid evidence" mean.

YES YOU DID!

Lood at your words. "is solid evidence". What does "is solid evidence" mean.

RandFan, I've explained several times now what I meant. The paragraph is entirely based on the assumption that the Christian belief that God exists is true. I was responding to Tricky, and was pointing out that most Christians hold their belief in prayer along with the belief that God exists, and therefore likely also hold the belief that God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. IF God exists as Christians believe, then it would follow the God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. That's all I was saying.

If you're going to insist that I meant otherwise despite my explanation of what I did say, then I'll have to assume that there's a reason that you prefer to argue against this straw man rather than against my actual position.

-Bri

[Bri]

I wish you would actually look at your post. The fact that you use a hypothetical does not change the facts.

Using a conditional does not fix the bolded line.

You clearly state that our ignorance is proof of something.

Yes, and it is. The fact that we don't know that God exists is proof that if God exists and is omnipotent, he might not want us to know for certain of his existence. Which is exactly what it says!

-Bri

[Ossai]

Bri
The Christian belief in prayer is based on evidence that it does happen. Please provide the evidence. Until the evidence is provided your statement is unsupported assertion, nothing more.

I'll repeat: A LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF THE OPPOSITE POSITION. Yet that is your position, and has been your position for a number of pages.

Attempting to attribute that ridiculous concept to me is a straw man.Not true, go check your previous posts yourself.

Ossai

[Tricky]

Only if you make certain speculations. There is no way to calculate the probability of other examples without speculating as to what might and might not be necessary for intelligent life to emerge. You don't have to calculate an exact probability. But having two important ingredients for life (a planet and a sun) goes a long way towards increasing the probability. If you like, add to that the obvious fact that things which make copies of themself tend to stay around. This also greatly increases the chance that you will find self-reproducing things in other places.

I know, yet you keep pointing out evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere rather than evidence of ingelligent life elsewhere. No, I keep showing you that important ingredients for life exist elsewhere. You continue to insist that even with only a partial list of ingredients for life and an example recipe, the liklihood of extraterrestrial life is just as remote as it would be with nothing on the list and no examples. Frankly, I have a hard time accepting that you are seriously arguing this position.

I might know that other lawns existed, but it would be sheer speculation on my part as to how similar those other lawns are to my lawn. I would also have to speculate on how the exact the conditions would have to be to my lawn in order to support the worms.
No you don't have to know the exact conditions, and that is the point. The fact that you know that other lawns exist which superficially resemble yours is enough to GREATLY increase the probability that worms exist on them. It is reasonable to extrapolate that if the distant lawns have some of the more remotely visable characteristics in common, like green grass, trees and shrubs etc., then they may have other characteristics in common. If you have a map handy, you might observe that there are millions of houses that you can't even see from where you are! That too greatly increases the probability that worms exist on other lawns.

I ask you this then: How much would you have to know about other lawns before you would consider it probable that worms existed on them? Would not every bit of data you found which indicated that other lawns were similar to yours add to the probability, or would you require actually seeing the worms before you would list them as "probable"?

I have no way of calculating how rational or irrational either belief is since there is little evidence of either. It sounds like your calculator only considers things where you have 100% of the evidence. I think you need a new one. One that works with rational numbers.

[elliotfc]

It is not "necessary", but since it fits the definition of irrational, it makes sense to call prayer irrational. Why should we rewrite definitions because some Christians don't like them?

ENOUGH

It doesn't fit the definition of irrational. I just checked three hard-copy dictionaries and one online dictionary.

I thought I'd check on this thread just to check on it, without replying. I did check on this thread. But now you are saying something that is false. So I won't even check on this thread anymore because it's not even stultifying. It's past that. Now it's being dishonest. I expected more.

-Elliot

[Ossai]

elliotfc
It doesn't fit the definition of irrational. I just checked three hard-copy dictionaries and one online dictionary.
I just checked dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrational) and Merriam-Webster (http://m-w.com/dictionary/irrational), according to the definitions listed in both, prayer is in fact irrational.

What dictionaries did you check?

Ossai

[Tricky]

ENOUGH

It doesn't fit the definition of irrational. I just checked three hard-copy dictionaries and one online dictionary.

I thought I'd check on this thread just to check on it, without replying. I did check on this thread. But now you are saying something that is false. So I won't even check on this thread anymore because it's not even stultifying. It's past that. Now it's being dishonest. I expected more.

-Elliot
Main Entry: 1ir·ra·tio·nal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary-tb?book=Dictionary&va=irrational) http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary-tb?book=Dictionary&va=irrational)
Pronunciation: i-'ra-sh(&-)n&l, "i(r)-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- + rationalis rational
: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason
and

Main Entry: 1rea·son (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary-tb?book=Dictionary&va=reason) http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary-tb?book=Dictionary&va=reason)
Pronunciation: 'rE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Anglo-French raisun, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon> c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact.
Nobody is being dishonest here Elliot. You may have an honest disagreement about the meaning of words. You are the last person who I expected to sink to personal attacks or to stick your fingers in your ears and say "la-la-la I'm not listening to you". I'm so sorry.:(

[Bri]

You don't have to calculate an exact probability. But having two important ingredients for life (a planet and a sun) goes a long way towards increasing the probability. If you like, add to that the obvious fact that things which make copies of themself tend to stay around. This also greatly increases the chance that you will find self-reproducing things in other places.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the galaxy or whether it is greater than or less than the probability of prayer working.

Although I might personally estimate the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the galaxy to be greater than the probability of prayer working, my estimation is based purely on speculation on my part. Even if one had a higher probability than the other, it doesn't necessarily follow that the one with the lower probability is irrational as you seem to be implying.

Frankly, I have a hard time accepting that you are seriously arguing this position.

I understand what you're saying. I really do. I simply disagree that it's nearly as cut-and-dry as you apparently believe it is. Certainly not enough so that I would proclaim one belief to be irrational and the other to be rational.


No you don't have to know the exact conditions, and that is the point. The fact that you know that other lawns exist which superficially resemble yours is enough to GREATLY increase the probability that worms exist on them.

Your entire argument is based on a knowledge of other lawns. Do we know of the existence of other planets that even superficially resemble ours? Without knowledge of other planets that are similar to ours, nor even knowledge of what about our planet allowed it to give rise to intelligent life where there was none previously, there is no reason to assume that intelligent life currently exists on other planets in the galaxy.

I ask you this then: How much would you have to know about other lawns before you would consider it probable that worms existed on them? Would not every bit of data you found which indicated that other lawns were similar to yours add to the probability, or would you require actually seeing the worms before you would list them as "probable"?

It sure would, and if we had evidence of other planets that were similar to ours, it might very well increase the probability.

It sounds like your calculator only considers things where you have 100% of the evidence. I think you need a new one. One that works with rational numbers.

No, I said that knowledge that intelligent life exists on earth doesn't provide enough evidence to estimate the probability that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. There is certainly evidence that the probability is greater than 0%, but there is little evidence to indicate what the probability might be beyond that.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%27s_equation), some estimates on the fraction of planets in our galaxy which can support life that actually go on to develop intelligent life are 0.00002%, which means that according to some estimates, there are 0.0000008 civilizations in our galaxy that can communicate with us (making the chances extremely unlikely of even a single one). If I accept those numbers, then it would certainly seem irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy. Luckily, I don't have to accept those numbers to be rational.

-Bri

[Tricky]

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%27s_equation), some estimates on the fraction of planets in our galaxy which can support life that actually go on to develop intelligent life are 0.00002%, which means that according to some estimates, there are 0.0000008 civilizations in our galaxy that can communicate with us (making the chances extremely unlikely of even a single one). If I accept those numbers, then it would certainly seem irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy. Luckily, I don't have to accept those numbers to be rational.
Being able to communicate with us is far different than having intelligent life. The Drake equation uses many mitigating factors for communication such as the liklihood that our periods of intelligence overlap in such a way that the signal they sent when intelligent would be recieved by us (many many light years away) while intelligent. They also limit the lifetime of an intelligent civilization to 10,000 years (rather Drakonian, wouldn't you say? :D). Throw in the inverse square law which means signals get weaker the farther away they are (note that the calculation is only for planets in our galaxy, not the whole universe), and the odds of finding a chat-room partner become prohibitive.

I agree, that the liklihood of communication is many many orders of magnitude lower than the liklihood of intelligent life ever existing anywhere else in our universe. But because of the sheer size of the universe, the odds go WAY up when you are talking about the mere existence of intelligence.

[I less than three logic]

Being able to communicate with us is far different than having intelligent life. The Drake equation uses many mitigating factors for communication such as the liklihood that our periods of intelligence overlap in such a way that the signal they sent when intelligent would be recieved by us (many many light years away) while intelligent. They also limit the lifetime of an intelligent civilization to 10,000 years (rather Drakonian, wouldn't you say? :D). Throw in the inverse square law which means signals get weaker the farther away they are (note that the calculation is only for planets in our galaxy, not the whole universe), and the odds of finding a chat-room partner become prohibitive.
No, the 0.0000008 is with the lowest estimates and only 420 years as the lifetime of an intelligent civilization.

[Tricky]

No, the 0.0000008 is with the lowest estimates and only 420 years as the lifetime of an intelligent civilization.
The lowest estimate of what? The fraction of planets we could have a chance of communicating with? That's not really a very small number, when you consider this (http://www.astro.washington.edu/kevin/galaxy.html):
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour.
Thas orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars;
It's a hundred thousand light-years side to side;
It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick,
But out by us it's just three thousand light-years wide.
We're thirty thousand light-years from Galactic Central Point,
We go 'round every two hundred million years;
And our galaxy itself is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.


The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!

[Bri]

Being able to communicate with us is far different than having intelligent life.

Since the Drake equation is only useful for this galaxy, let's assume we're talking only about intelligent life in this galaxy (unless you feel that to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy is irrational).

According to the Wikipedia article, one estimate of the fraction of planets that can support life that actually go on to develop intelligent life is .000000033. So, discounting the variable having to do with communication (fc), we get 0.00008316 intelligent civilations in the galaxy.

I agree, that the liklihood of communication is many many orders of magnitude lower than the liklihood of intelligent life ever existing anywhere else in our universe. But because of the sheer size of the universe, the odds go WAY up when you are talking about the mere existence of intelligence.

Although the estimate of 0.00008316 intelligent civilizations in the galaxy is better than 0.0000008 civilizations in our galaxy that can and are willing to communicate with us, the odds are still far in favor of no intelligent life by this estimate. So, my point still stands. Based on this estimate, it would still seem irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy.

-Bri

[Bri]

No, the 0.0000008 is with the lowest estimates and only 420 years as the lifetime of an intelligent civilization.

Again, although speculation, there is good reason to set it to 420 (that is Michael Shermer's estimate, by the way).

Setting it to even 100,000 years doesn't come close to tipping the odds in favor of one who believes that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. A civilization would have to exist for well over 2.5 million years to make the result 0.5 intelligent civilizations (ignoring the variable that limits the number that are willing and able to communicate with us).

-Bri

[Tricky]

Again, although speculation, there is good reason to set it to 420 (that is Michael Shermer's estimate, by the way).

Setting it to even 100,000 years doesn't come close to tipping the odds in favor of one who believes that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. A civilization would have to exist for well over 2.5 million years to make the result 0.5 intelligent civilizations (ignoring the variable that limits the number that are willing and able to communicate with us).

-BriOkay. Multiply that times a trillion galaxies.

[I less than three logic]

Bri, I don’t think you understand the Drake equation one bit. The equation is for calculating the number of intelligent civilizations we might expect existing far enough away, long enough ago, and for a long enough period of time for their signals to pass within detectable range of Earth during a time that we are able to detect them. That is much, much, much more narrow than the probability of other intelligent life simply existing elsewhere.

Edited for poor wording on my part.

Edited again to expend content.

Actually, I think I’ll expand this a bit for you to explain. I’ll even keep your conservative estimates that gave you the 0.000008 that you seem to think is the number planets with intelligent life the equation shows to exit.

R = 6/year – That means that 6 stars are born each year in this galaxy.

fp=0.5 – Half of the stars form planets.

ne=2 – Average of 2 habitable planets per stars that have planets.

fl=0.33 – One in three habitable planets go on to form life.

fi=0.0000001 – One in 10 million planets that form life end up with intelligent life.

fc=0.01 – One in a hundred intelligent life forms become communicating life forms.

We can stop here; the last category isn’t relevant to this demonstration. Remember this based on 6 stars being formed per year, as stated above. So the equation:

Nc=R * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc

would show the number of communicating life forms we could expect to develop each year. The number I got was 0.00000000198 per year. Assuming you don’t believe the Earth was formed 6,000 years ago, that means by this estimate we could expect about 8.91 (I’ll even round this down to 8) intelligent communicating life forms to have emerged, in this galaxy alone, during the 4 and a half billion years the Earth has been around.

[Bri]

Okay. Multiply that times a trillion galaxies.

Unless you're saying that it's irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy, there is no need to bring the entire universe into the equation.

-Bri

[Bri]

Actually, I think I’ll expand this a bit for you to explain. I’ll even keep your conservative estimates that gave you the 0.000008 that you seem to think is the number planets with intelligent life the equation shows to exit.

Have you been reading the same thread I have? I already admitted that 0.0000008316 is the number of civilizations in our galaxy that can and are willing to communicate with us by one estimate. Using fc=1.0 instead of fc=0.01 (ignoring the estimate that only 1 out of 100 would actually communicate) would give you 0.00008316 intelligent communicating and non-communicating civilizations that exist in the galaxy at any given time.

would show the number of communicating life forms we could expect to develop each year. The number I got was 0.00000000198 per year. Assuming you don’t believe the Earth was formed 6,000 years ago, that means by this estimate we could expect about 8.91 (I’ll even round this down to 8) intelligent communicating life forms to have emerged during the 4 and a half billion years the Earth has been around.

We were talking about how many actually exist right now, as in the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. I thought that was clear. If 8.91 emerged during the past 4.5 billion years and they lived for an average of 420 years, it seems unlikely that there are any right now.

Of course, that completely misses the point that any numbers you place in the variables is pure speculation since we don't know what conditions actually give rise to intelligent life.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

You don't know what that “420 years” even means. We've been an intelligent life form for much longer than 420 years.

[I less than three logic]

Unless you're saying that it's irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy, there is no need to bring the entire universe into the equation.

-Bri
No, your argument has been simply about intelligent life outside this solar system, we’ve been talking about the universe for quite some time. Just recently you contracted it down to this galaxy alone.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1816499#post1816499
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1832975#post1832975
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1830441#post1830441
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1829409#post1829409


Here’s a few links where you used the word universe yourself. As I’ve said many of us have been using it for quite some time.

[RandFan]

All of these are, of course, your opinion. When you said that "belief in prayer is irrational" isn't just your opinion, you were certainly overstating your case. No more than stating that the sun will rise tomorrow is overstating my case.

If I argue that the sun will rise tomorrow based on our observations of the sun and you think that is overstating my case then you are consistent. You don't know what you are talking about but we can end the discussion.

Skeptic's Dictionary: Prayer (http://skepdic.com/prayer.html)

...and more important, if SBs could intervene in nature at will or if invisible energies could be directed by our intentions, then the order and lawfulness of the world of experience and of the world that science (http://skepdic.com/science.html) attempts to understand would be impossible. This understanding is the same understanding that leads me to conclude that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Bri,

If you can read that quote and think that the physical laws that govern the sun are somehow different than the laws that govern everything else then you simply don't understand the laws of physics or you believe in faith or you simply don't understand the argument.

[RandFan]

RandFan, I've explained several times now what I meant. The paragraph is entirely based on the assumption that the Christian belief that God exists is true.Hypothetical arguments don't give you license to be illogical.


I was responding to Tricky, and was pointing out that most Christians hold their belief in prayer along with the belief that God exists, and therefore likely also hold the belief that God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. IF God exists as Christians believe, then it would follow the God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. That's all I was saying. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID!!!It may very well have been what you meant but it is NOT WHAT YOU SAID!

If you're going to insist that I meant otherwise despite my explanation of what I did say, then I'll have to assume that there's a reason that you prefer to argue against this straw man rather than against my actual position.Intellectual honesty would dictate that you acknowledge your error or in the least not argue as if you had not said what you clearly said regardless of your meaning. I don't know what you meant. I can't read your mind. I will take you at your word that you meant something else.

Now, if you did mean something else then have the decency to simply correct the record and then perhaps the courage to simply admit your mistake.

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence. There is NO mistake about what you said. Lacking knowledge of A is evidence of B.

That is illogical. It was illogical yesterday, it is illogical today and it will be illogical tomorrow.

[RandFan]

Yes, and it is. The fact that we don't know that God exists is proof that if God exists and is omnipotent, he might not want us to know for certain of his existence. Which is exactly what it says! Sorry Bri, no. This is illogical. To say that "we don't know" is to say that we lack knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not proof of anything except the lack of knoweldege. You argument is demonstrably fallacious.

[RandFan]

Unless you're saying that it's irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy, there is no need to bring the entire universe into the equation.

-BriBri, that's just not honest. You know better. If you go back and look at the record you will find that you said outside of our solar system at least a dozen times. Outside of our Galaxy didn't get brought up until I noted Drake's equations.

[RandFan]

No, your argument has been simply about intelligent life outside this solar system, we’ve been talking about the universe for quite some time. Just recently you contracted it down to this galaxy alone.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1816499#post1816499
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1832975#post1832975
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1830441#post1830441
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1829409#post1829409


Here’s a few links where you used the word universe yourself. As I’ve said many of us have been using it for quite some time. :)

[Hyver]

Sorry Bri, no. This is illogical. To say that "we don't know" is to say that we lack knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not proof of anything except the lack of knoweldege. You argument is demonstrably fallacious.
Is it illogical? I think that there might be another way to go about saying this that isn't illogical.

1. God is omnipotant (that word has alot of baggage with it though, so lets just say that an omnipotant being can do all things that are not logically impossible)
2. I do not have any evidance that God exists.
3. God is not restrained in any way from providing me evidence of his existance. (this would be a part of omnipotence, but I added it here again on the offchance that there might be some logical impossibility about God providing us evidence)

It seems reasonable to make a disjunction
4. "God does not exist" or "God does not want to provide evidence of his existance"

If we assume God does exist, then our premesis are:

1a. God is omnipotant (that word has alot of baggage with it though, so lets just say that an omnipotant being can do all things that are not logically impossible)
2a. I do not have any evidance that God exists.
3a. God is not restrained in any way from providing me evidence of his existance. (this would be a part of omnipotence, but I added it here again on the offchance that there might be some logical impossibility about God providing us evidence)
4a. God exists

The next premise follows without needing any support. It's just simply the case that "A or Not A" is true, so we can assert 5

5. God does want me to know about him, or God does not want me to know about him.

If the first part of the disjunction is true "God wants me to know about him." then we have a situation where God exists, is omnipotant, has nothing stopping him from providing me the evidence to know about him, and wants me to know about him, but does not let me know about him. That seems to be a contradictory set of premises. If that is indeed a contradiction then "Not A" must be then true, that is God must not want me to know about his existance.

[RandFan]

Is it illogical? I think that there might be another way to go about saying this that isn't illogical. Hey, I've been wrong before... not this time though.

5. God does want me to know about him, or God does not want me to know about him. False disjunction. God may simply not care.

There are other problems with the argument but let's focus on just one at a time.

[Hyver]

If God doesn't care that would be equivalent to not wanting me to know. "Not A" doesn't have to be an active denial of information, it just has to not be that case that he actively wants me to know of his existance.

[RandFan]

If God doesn't care that would be equivalent to not wanting me to know. "Not A" doesn't have to be an active denial of information, it just has to not be that case that he actively wants me to know of his existance. Sorry, no, that is not correct. An omnipotent God could simply not care. Not wanting someone to know is most certainly not the same as not caring if one knows. You will have to do better.

[Hyver]

Why? When I say "A or not A" I mean exactly that. The disjunction I introduced is that either A: God wants me to know that he exists, or Not A, that is "It is not the case that A" or fully unpacked "It is not that case that God wants me to know that he exists." Lets look at another example.

we will, in this example, say that A is "I want to go outside" so either it is true that A: "I want to go outside" or not A, "It is not the case that I want to go outside". It doesn't matter if I don't care about going outside, or if I want to go upstairs, or whatever. All that matters is that it's not the case that I want to go outside. It is logically impossible for "A or not A" to be false, and as I've defined omnipotence, God cannot do logically impossible things.

Something is either true, or it's not true.

[RandFan]

Something is either true, or it's not true. Not everything. Not by a long stretch. Please see false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy).

I'm at home in the back yard.
I have three visitors.

1.) The Probation officer knocks on my front door I don't want him to know I'm home so I sneak off and hide in the bushes hoping that if he comes back he won't see me.

2.) My neighbor knocks on the door. I don't care if he knows that I'm home. I don't care enough to go to the front and let him know I'm home and I don't care enough to hide in the bushes. If he sees me fine. If he doesn't fine.

3.) Heidi Klum (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&sa=N&resnum=0&q=heidi%20klum&tab=wi) knocks on my door. I jump to my feet and run around the house with visions of sugar plumbs dancing in my head.

It can't be said that I either want my visitors to know that I'm home or that I don't want them to know that I'm home.

Your argument is demonstrably fallacious.

[Tricky]

Unless you're saying that it's irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy, there is no need to bring the entire universe into the equation.

-Bri
I believe that your first discussion was about "extrasolar life". Dang, where are those goalposts. They were here a minute ago.

[ceo_esq]

Not everything. Not by a long stretch. Please see false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy).

I'm at home in the back yard.
I have three visitors.

1.) The Probation officer knocks on my front door I don't want him to know I'm home so I sneak off and hide in the bushes hoping that if he comes back he won't see me.

2.) My neighbor knocks on the door. I don't care if he knows that I'm home. I don't care enough to go to the front and let him know I'm home and I don't care enough to hide in the bushes. If he sees me fine. If he doesn't fine.

3.) Heidi Klum (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&sa=N&resnum=0&q=heidi%20klum&tab=wi) knocks on my door. I jump to my feet and run around the house with visions of sugar plumbs dancing in my head.

It can't be said that I either want my visitors to know that I'm home or that I don't want them to know that I'm home.

Your argument is demonstrably fallacious.

I disagree. If for some reason the Law of the Excluded Middle doesn't seem to apply, it's because the predicates haven't been adequately defined.

When you say "Not wanting someone to know is most certainly not the same as not caring if one knows", you're using an inexact, though common, sense of "not wanting someone to know" that basically equates to "wanting someone not to know". Technically, however, "not wanting someone to know" describes everything (including but not limited to complete indifference) other than actually wanting someone to know. So formally speaking, not caring one way or the other is a subset of not wanting.

That is, I believe, what Hyver was getting at, and he was correct.

[Hyver]

It can't be said that I either want my visitors to know that I'm home or that I don't want them to know that I'm home.


You're right, my initial statement (God wants/doesnt want us to know about him) has a lack of specificity preventing it from forming a proper dichotomy. If we are to take each of your examples and create a specific statement (I do not want the probation officer to know that I am at my house exactly in the instance for only this moment) we could probably specify properly to make it into a dichotomy.

I then propose the statement "God at this very moment in time does want me, and me alone to have evidence of his existence without any exertion of effort on my part to obtain said evidence, or it is not the case that God at this very moment in time does want me, and me alone to have evidence of his existence without any exertion of effort on my part to obtain said evidence." in replacement of my previous statement 5.


When you say "Not wanting someone to know is most certainly not the same as not caring if one knows", you're using an inexact, though common, sense of "not wanting someone to know" that basically equates to "wanting someone not to know". Technically, however, "not wanting someone to know" describes everything (including but not limited to complete indifference) other than actually wanting someone to know. So formally speaking, not caring one way or the other is a subset of not wanting.

that actually was what I was getting at, thank you for stating it more eloquently.

[RandFan]

When you say "Not wanting someone to know is most certainly not the same as not caring if one knows", you're using an inexact, though common, sense of "not wanting someone to know" that basically equates to "wanting someone not to know". No, "not caring" is null. It is neutral. It is neither wanting or not wanting. You are incorrectly equating a neutral response to "not wanting". I could as easily assign a neutral response to not not wanting.

Neutral != wanting.
Neutral != not wanting.

The 3 possibilities are:

1. God wants.
2. God does not want.
3. God is indifferent.

[RandFan]

...that actually was what I was getting at, thank you for stating it more eloquently.Unfortunately it fails. (see above)

[RandFan]

Now for something completly different.



John is afraid of Steve.
John wishes to speak to whoever is in charge.
The person in charge is Steve.
? So, does John Want to talk to Steve or not?

I will grant that God would likely not be afraid and also would likely not be conflicted. However this clearly belies the notion that everything other than wanting is a subset of not wanting.

[Hyver]

No, "not caring" is null. It is neutral. It is neither wanting or not wanting. You are incorectly equating a neutral response as "not wanting". I could as easily assign a neutral response as not not wanting.

Neutral != wanting.
Neutral != not wanting.


we seem to have a difference in opinion as to what is implied by "not".

When I say "It is not the case that I want a candy bar" I imply only that the statement "I want a candy bar" is false. whatever it is that falsifies that statement doesn't matter. All that matters is that the statement "I want a candy bar" is not true. It is a passive denial of the phrase "I want a candy bar". If I were to say "I do not want a candy bar" It is a statement of truth rather than a denial of another statement.

When I set up a dichotomy "I want a candy bar or it is not the case that I want a candy bar" there are two options. Option 1 says that I want a candy bar, option two is accurate in every other possible emotional state which does not include "I want a candy bar".

As for the Steve-John conflict, I don't know. I'll assume that being afraid will be similar to not wanting to talk to. If that's the case it would be true that John wants to talk to Steve (in the active sense), and that John does not want to talk to Steve(in the active sense), but not true in either of the passive senses (it is not the case that John wants to talk to Steve, and it is not the case that John does not want to talk to Steve). Atleast that's how I read it anyway.

[RandFan]

we seem to have a difference in opinion as to what is implied by "not". It's the programing in me. We use null values all of the time. It gives you an intuitive understanding of neutral values.

When I say "It is not the case that I want a candy bar" I imply only that the statement "I want a candy bar" is false.

Ok, but what about when I say "it is not the case that I want a candy bar and it is not the case that I don't want a candy bar".

In your world their is no indifference. The problem is that the world is full of indifference. such neutral values have been understood for thousands of years.

I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then, because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Rev 3:15-16

When I set up a dichotomy "I want a candy bar or it is not the case that I want a candy bar" there are two options. Option 1 says that I want a candy bar, option two is accurate in every other possible emotional state which does not include "I want a candy bar". And that is the problem, you are denying that it is possible to be indifferent. That is precisely why it is a false dichotomy. You can't exclude the possibility that an entity can be indifferent.

in·dif·fer·ent
adj.

Having no particular interest or concern; apathetic: indifferent to the sufferings of others.
Having no marked feeling for or against: She remained indifferent toward their proposal.
Not mattering one way or the other: It's indifferent to me which outfit you choose.
Characterized by a lack of partiality; unbiased: an indifferent judge.
Being neither too much nor too little; moderate.
Being neither good nor bad; mediocre: an indifferent performance. See Synonyms at average (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=average).
Being neither right nor wrong.
Not active or involved; neutral: an indifferent chemical in a reaction.
Biology. Undifferentiated, as cells or tissue. Reading the definitions do you see my point?

As for the Steve-John conflict, I don't know. I'll assume that being afraid will be similar to not wanting to talk to. If that's the case it would be true that John wants to talk to Steve (in the active sense), and that John does not want to talk to Steve(in the active sense), but not true in either of the passive senses (it is not the case that John wants to talk to Steve, and it is not the case that John does not want to talk to Steve). Atleast that's how I read it anyway. No need to make it all that complicated. Steve is conflicted wanting and not wanting simultaneously. It is a very real possibility as to humans and logic. We are not computers. But we can have null values.

[ceo_esq]

1.) I could simply not care if anyone knew I was home.
2.) I could want everyone to know I was home.
3.) I could not want anyone to know that I was home.

#1 is neutral.
#2 is affirmative.
#3 Is negative.

That is correct, but no one is disputing that. No one is saying that something must be either affirmative or negative in the sense you mean above.

You don't seem to have grasped my point, which that is you are interpreting "Not wanting X" as "Wanting the opposite of X", and indeed the phrase is often used that way. Note how in your example you've actually had to resort to an inconsistency in defining "X": in #1 and #3 you use the word "anyone" and in #2 you say "everyone", which subtly changes the meaning.

In order to reason this properly, let's not be changing X around. Let X be a state of affairs where everybody knows I'm home. "I want X" will be either true or false, as Hyver suggested it must be:

1. If I want everybody to know I'm home, it's obviously true that "I want X".
2. If I want only some people to know I'm home, or don't care at all, then it's false that "I want X".
3. If there is nobody that I want to know I'm home, then it's also false that "I want X".

It can be the case that A is B, or that A is not B, but as long as A (the subject) and B (the predicate) are being adequately and consistently defined in both cases, then as we say in logic, tertium non datur. There is no third option. In your example above, there really isn't a third kind of possibility; the "neutral" and "negative" cases are both examples belonging to the same category. (This has nothing to do with not recognizing indifference or neutrality.)

Recall that, as I said, Hyver was using "not wanting X" it in the stricter way that logicians do, meaning simply, and accurately, the absence of wanting X. I may feel neutrally or negatively about X, but these are both subsets of the absence of wanting X (as distinguished from "wanting the opposite of X").

There is not, as you suggest, a separate "logic about wanting something". There's just a common linguistic ambiguity in "not wanting something", and (without realizing it, I think) you are exploiting that ambiguity to suggest that Hyver was wrong, when in fact he was simply adhering to a different sense of "not wanting" (and by reference to that sense, he was entirely right).

ETA: By the time I posted this, I saw that Hyver tried to point out the language problem.

[RandFan]

In order to reason this properly, let's not be changing X around. Let X be a state of affairs where everybody knows I'm home. "I want X" will be either true or false, as Hyver suggested it must be: But you are excluding the possibility that you could be indifferent to X.

I want X
I don't want X
I'm indifferent to X

1. If I want everybody to know I'm home, it's obviously true that "I want X".
2. If I want only some people to know I'm home, or don't care at all, then it's false that "I want X".
3. If there is nobody that I want to know I'm home, then it's also false that "I want X". Again, you are excluding indifference. Indifference is defined as neither wanting or not wanting. Yet you are equating it to not wanting. This makes no sense. Please see the definitions above.

There is not, as you suggest, a separate "logic about wanting something".I'm not suggesting a separate "logic" about anything. I'm simply telling you that there is such a thing as a neutral response. Indifference is defined as neither for or against.

You are now telling me that indifference is against. Not by definition it is not.

[Hyver]

It's the programing in me. We use null values all of the time. It gives you an intuitive understanding of neutral values.



Ok, but what about when I say "it is not the case that I want a candy bar and it is not the case that I don't want a candy bar".

In your world their is no indifference. The problem is that the world is full of indifference. such neutral values have been understood for thousands of years.



And that is the problem, you are denying that it is possible to be indifferent. That is precisely why it is a false dichotomy. You can't exclude the possibility that an entity can be indifferent.

Reading the definitions do you see my point?

No need to make it all that complicated. Steve is conflicted wanting and not wanting simultaneously. It is a very real possibility as to humans and logic. We are not computers. But we can have null values.


well, atleast we can agree on something now. I am not in anyway trying to say there are not null values (I would retract my statement saying "Something is either true, or it's not true." That was too black and white and didn't really say what I wanted it to say anyway). I fully agree with you that people can be indifferent. In no way, however, does the dichotomy "I want a candy bar or it is not the case that I want a candy bar" deny indifference. All that it does is set up two possible scenarios. In the first statement is encapsilated all possible worlds in which the idea "I want a candy bar" is true. Every other possible world, those that are null, those that are indifferent, those in which I don't even exist, cause the statement to be true via the second part.

let's change it around a bit. "Pete wants a candy bar, or it is not the case that pete wants a candy bar". That statement is always true. always. If we erased everything from the universe so we just had empty space it would still be true. If Pete were indifferent then it would not be the case that he wanted the candy bar, he would of course be indifferent to the idea. If Pete hated candy bars and didn't want one, it would still be true becouse it is not the case that pete wants a candy bar. If candy bars didn't exist then it would still be true becouse Pete would not even have a notion of what a candy bar is. The statement is always true.

[RandFan]

Note how in your example you've actually had to resort to an inconsistency in defining "X": in #1 and #3 you use the word "anyone" and in #2 you say "everyone", which subtly changes the meaning.Fair enough. Let's forgoe any ambiguity.

1. God wants.
2. God does not want.
3. God is indifferent.

[Hyver]

ok, lets redo the origional argument only I will set up a 3 part or statement as step 5, the argument turns out the same only instead of proving that "It is not the case that God wants me to know about him" it will prove "It is not the case that God wants me to know about him, or God is indifferent to my knowledge of him" Is that more satisfying to you?

In the end it proved the same thing, one might be easier to read than the other, but that was all that was being implied to begin with.

edit: reading back at my first post, it was very vague, and you were absolutly right to question the validity of the language.

[RandFan]

All that it does is set up two possible scenarios. In the first statement is encapsilated all possible worlds in which the idea "I want a candy bar" is true. Every other possible world, those that are null, those that are indifferent, those in which I don't even exist, cause the statement to be true via the second part. Let's turn it around.

"I don't want a candy bar" is true. Every other possible world, those that are null, those that are indifferent, those in which I don't even exist, cause the statement to be true via the second part.

"Pete wants a candy bar, or it is not the case that pete wants a candy bar". False dichotomy.

1.) Pete wants a candy bar.
2.) Pete doesn't want a candy bar.
3.) Pete is indifferent to having or not having a candy bar.

That statement is always true. always. No, it is a false dichotomy. It is possible for me to, as the dictionary says, have "no marked feeling for or against".

[RandFan]

ok, lets redo the origional argument only I will set up a 3 part or statement as step 5, the argument turns out the same only instead of proving that "It is not the case that God wants me to know about him" it will prove "It is not the case that God wants me to know about him, or God is indifferent to my knowledge of him" Is that more satisfying to you?

In the end it proved the same thing, one might be easier to read than the other, but that was all that was being implied to begin with.

edit: reading back at my first post, it was very vague, and you were absolutly right to question the validity of the language. I have no idea what you are getting at.

[Hyver]

Let's turn it around.

"I don't want a candy bar" is true. Every other possible world, those that are null, those that are indifferent, those in which I don't even exist, cause the statement to be true via the second part.


So your statement looks like this. "Pete does not want the the candy bar, or it is not the case that pete does not want the candy bar"

When pete is activly not wanting the candy bar, it is true via the first part, when pete is not activly not wanting the candy bar it is also true.
Let's actually flip it around, by puting a not infront of the whole thing and see what happens.

"Pete wants the candy bar, or it is not the case that pete wants the candy bar"

I'm going to simplify this to "A or not A". You are telling me that "It's not that case that A or not A". If that were true then it would also be true that "Not A and A" is true, becouse that's what happens when you negate a disjunction. (example, "it is a dog or a cat", negated becomes "it is niether a dog nor a cat.") So you are comited to the statement "It is not the case that pete wants a candy bar, and it is not the case that it is not the case that pete wants a candy bar." That statement is patently absurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum).

[RandFan]

I'm going to simplify this to "A or not A". This is where you are making your mistake. "A or not A or null".

You are telling me that "It's not that case that A or not A". If that were true then it would also be true that "Not A and A" is true, becouse that's what happens when you negate a disjunction. (example, "it is a dog or a cat", negated becomes "it is niether a dog nor a cat.")
Yeah, and I have a bird which is neither a dog nor a cat. To be fair you should have siad It is a dog or it is not a dog.

So you are comited to the statement "It is not the case that pete wants a candy bar, and it is not the case that it is not the case that pete wants a candy bar." That statement is patently absurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum). No, I'm committed to the statement, It is not the case that Pete wants a candy bar and it is not the case that Pete doesn't want a candy bar. Pete is indifferent. As the dictionary says Pete has "no marked feeling for or against".

[RandFan]

Let me try this.

You ask Pete if he wants a candy bar and he says that he doesn't care. He says you can leave it on the desk in which case he will eat it or you can take it with you in which case he won't.

Does Pete want or not want the candy bar? Remember, you can only choose one.

[RandFan]

Recall that, as I said, Hyver was using "not wanting X" it in the stricter way that logicians do, meaning simply, and accurately, the absence of wanting X. I may feel neutrally or negatively about X, but these are both subsets of the absence of wanting X (as distinguished from "wanting the opposite of X").1
X = The ignorance by people of Gods existence.
God wants X.
Neutral or negative are both subsets of the absence of wanting X.
By this logic neutrality would dictate that God wants us to know that he exists.

2
X = Knowledge of God's existence.
God wants X.
Neutral or negative are both subsets of the absence of wanting X.
By this logic neutrality would dictate that God does not want us to now that he exists.

[Hyver]

This is where you are making your mistake. "A or not A or null".

No, for the statement which I'm using as an example, "A or not A" will do.



Yeah, and I have a bird which is neither a dog nor a cat. To be fair you should have siad It is a dog or it is not a dog.

No, I don't really care about how that turns out, becouse I was just using it as a common language way to show what happens when you negate a disjunction.


No, I'm committed to the statement, It is not the case that Pete wants a candy bar and it is not the case that Pete doesn't want a candy bar. Pete is indifferent. As the dictionary says Pete has "no marked feeling for or against".

Right, but you are now using a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I'm not saying that "Pete wants a candy bar or pete doesn't want a candy bar" is a dichotomy. I made that mistake and corrected it in another post. The current disjunction "Pete wants a candy bar or it is not the case that pete wants a candy bar" is an accurate representation.

As I said before, if you want to claim that the above statement is a false dichotomy then you must be wedded to the position that the opposite is true, that is, the statement "It is not the case that the disjunction "Pete wants a candy bar or it is not the case that Pete wants a candy bar"". If we use DeMorgan's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeMorgans_Law) to rewrite this we get "It is not the case that Pete wants a candy bar and it is not the case that it is not the case that Pete wants a candy bar." If we call "It is not the case that Pete wants a candy bar" A, then we have "A and not A". "A and not A" is a contradiction, which is why you are wrong that the origional statement about pete was wrong.

[RandFan]

The current disjunction "Pete wants a candy bar or it is not the case that pete wants a candy bar" is an accurate representation.

As I said before, if you want to claim that the above statement is a false dichotomy then you must be wedded to the position that the opposite is true, that is, the statement "It is not the case that the disjunction "Pete wants a candy bar or it is not the case that Pete wants a candy bar"".No, if I want to claim that the above statement is a false dichotomy then I must demonstrate that there are more options.

False choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_choice)

The fallacy of this type of argument is that it tries to eliminate the middle ground. A typical false choice is the assertion "You are either with me or you are against me." The chooser is forced to decide between absolute commitment or absolute non-commitment. Thus, the possibility of compromise is discounted. Such absolutism is applicable in science and mathematics, in which problems can have one and only one solution. In philosophy, however, there are few if any absolutes. Instead of stating that "Pete wants an apple" what if we state that "Pete is either for his friend or he is against him" or to state it in another way, "Pete either wants to help is friend or he doesn't". Do you now see the false dichotomy?

Let's go back to my earlier example.

John is afraid of Steve.
John wants to speak to whoever is in charge.
The person in charge is Steve.

The mistake that you are making is assuming that wanting or not wanting is an absolute and that there is no middle ground or that there are no conflicts in wanting something. You are trying to make want an absolute, you are trying to force fit want, a desire that is not absolute, into an either/or proposition and you can't do that.

I want to eat the candy bar.
I don't want to gain weight.

So, which is it?

You are either for me or you are against me is a classical false choice (see the wikipedia article above). Let's reword that using your statement in the hopes of getting you to understand.

You either want to help me or you don't want to help me.

As I said before, if you want to claim that the above statement is a false dichotomy then you must be wedded to the position that the opposite is true, that is, the statement "It is not the case that the disjunction "you want to help me or it is not the case that you want to help me"".

[RandFan]

Let me try this.

You ask Pete if he wants a candy bar and he says that he doesn't care. He says you can leave it on the desk in which case he will eat it or you can take it with you in which case he won't.

Does Pete want or not want the candy bar? Remember, you can only choose one.I was really hoping for a response. :(

[drkitten]

This is where you are making your mistake. "A or not A or null".

Er, Rand.... He's not making the mistake. You are. To be fair, he picked a bad metaphor with his candy bar example, because English doesn't handle modal verb negation well.

"I want a candy bar" means, conventionally, "I actively desire a candy bar."

The opposite of "I want a candy bar" is "I do not actively desire a candy bar." This includes both the situation where I actively desire the absence of a candy bar, and the case where I don't have an active desire at all.

A better example would be in reportage.

"John said that Mary was going to the store."

"No, that's not true!"

If, in fact, it's not true that John said that, then he might have said something different or he might have simply remained silent. The statement "It is not the case that John said that Mary was going to the store" is equivalent to "John did not say that Mary was going to the store," not "John said that Mary wasn't going to the store."

[RandFan]

Er, Rand.... He's not making the mistake. You are. To be fair, he picked a bad metaphor with his candy bar example, because English doesn't handle modal verb negation well.

"I want a candy bar" means, conventionally, "I actively desire a candy bar."

The opposite of "I want a candy bar" is "I do not actively desire a candy bar." This includes both the situation where I actively desire the absence of a candy bar, and the case where I don't have an active desire at all. So, "you want to help me" is "you actively desire to help me".

So, you either actively desire to help me or you don't.
You are either with me or you are against me.

False choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_choice)

A typical false choice is the assertion "You are either with me or you are against me." The chooser is forced to decide between absolute commitment or absolute non-commitment. The problem is that desire is not an absolute. You may not absolutely, actively desire or not actively desire a candy bar.

A better example would be in reportage.

"John said that Mary was going to the store."

"No, that's not true!"

If, in fact, it's not true that John said that, then he might have said something different or he might have simply remained silent. The statement "It is not the case that John said that Mary was going to the store" is equivalent to "John did not say that Mary was going to the store," not "John said that Mary wasn't going to the store."Seeing someone or not seeing someone is either true or not true. Desire is not an absolute.

I want to eat a candy bar.
I want to lose weight.

Which is true?

[RandFan]

John wants to go to the fair.
John wants to keep his job.
If John goes to the fair he will lose his job.

What does John want?

[I less than three logic]

John wants a clone. :D

[RandFan]

John wants a clone. :DMe too. :D

[Bri]

No, your argument has been simply about intelligent life outside this solar system, we’ve been talking about the universe for quite some time. Just recently you contracted it down to this galaxy alone.

Actually, another poster mentioned Drake's equation, which was when we first began talking about the galaxy as opposed to the universe (Drake's equation doesn't take into account any other galaxies, probably for good reason).

Nonetheless, the discussion was about whether opinions for which there is little supporting evidence are necessarily irrational. I simply brought up the question of intelligent life elsewhere because it seems to contradict the notion that such beliefs are irrational. Unless you are saying that belief in intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational, then they are both valid comparisons. So, do you think it is irrational to believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy? If not, then how is that belief different from a belief that prayer works?

-Bri

[Bri]

No more than stating that the sun will rise tomorrow is overstating my case.

I also disagree with that. As I've mentioned, there is far more evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow than there is evidence that prayer never works. So, although technically they are both opinions, one is a straw man since we are talking about beliefs for which there is little evidence.

If you can read that quote and think that the physical laws that govern the sun are somehow different than the laws that govern everything else then you simply don't understand the laws of physics or you believe in faith or you simply don't understand the argument.

I don't recall saying that the difference between the two had anything to do with violations of the laws of physics. The sun not rising is a straw man because of the reason given above, not because they don't both violate the laws of physics (although the sun not rising wouldn't necessarily violate the laws of physics if one believed that some other catastrophic event were going to occur).

-Bri

[RandFan]

Actually, another poster mentioned Drake's equation, which was when we first began talking about the galaxy as opposed to the universe (Drake's equation doesn't take into account any other galaxies, probably for good reason). And what pray tell would that reason be? Whatever that reason is it most certainly cannot help your positions. In any event you were talking about life outside of our solar system. This meets that requirement to a small degree and further illustrates the increased likelihood of life as we add galaxies to the equations.

[Bri]

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID!!!It may very well have been what you meant but it is NOT WHAT YOU SAID!

It's both what I said and what I meant. I showed you in the paragraph where it clearly said "If God exists." If you misunderstood what I said, or if what I said wasn't clear enough, then I apologize. Now, please get over it!

Intellectual honesty would dictate that you acknowledge your error or in the least not argue as if you had not said what you clearly said regardless of your meaning. I don't know what you meant. I can't read your mind. I will take you at your word that you meant something else.

And yet you still argue about it even when I explained what I meant.

Now, if you did mean something else then have the decency to simply correct the record and then perhaps the courage to simply admit your mistake.

I've done so twice. Maybe more.

There is NO mistake about what you said. Lacking knowledge of A is evidence of B.

Correct, that is what I said. However, I did NOT say that lacking knowledge of "A" is evidence of "not A."

That is illogical. It was illogical yesterday, it is illogical today and it will be illogical tomorrow.

Wrong. Lacking knowledge of something can certainly be evidence of something else. For example, lacking knowledge of basic logic is evidence that you need to do more research into basic logic.

What I DIDN'T say was that lacking knowledge of God's existence was evidence that God doesn't exist or that God does exist or that prayer works or that prayer doesn't work.

What I DID say was that if an omnipotent God exists, the fact that we don't know for certain of his existence would indicate that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence.

-Bri

[RandFan]

I also disagree with that. As I've mentioned, there is far more evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow than there is evidence that prayer never works. So, although technically they are both opinions, one is a straw man since we are talking about beliefs for which there is little evidence. No, since there is no evidence that prayer works and lots of evidence that prayer doesn't work. I know you think your little distraction is effective but it is not.

The sun will rise tomorrow: Lot's of evidence that it will and no evidence that it wont.

Prayer does not work: Lot's of evidence that it does not work and no evidence that it does.

[RandFan]

It's both what I said and what I meant. I showed you in the paragraph where it clearly said "If God exists." And I have shown you that "if" will not change anything. It is still illogical.

[Bri]

Sorry Bri, no. This is illogical. To say that "we don't know" is to say that we lack knowledge. Lack of knowledge is not proof of anything except the lack of knoweldege. You argument is demonstrably fallacious.

Sorry, but I have to call B.S. on you there. Lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of the opposite, but it can be evidence of something else. See my previous post for some examples.

-Bri

[Bri]

Bri, that's just not honest. You know better. If you go back and look at the record you will find that you said outside of our solar system at least a dozen times. Outside of our Galaxy didn't get brought up until I noted Drake's equations.

Did I ever claim otherwise?

What I DID say was that either is a valid counter-example to the argument that belief in something is irrational if there is little evidence for it UNLESS you are admitting that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational. Do you think that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational?

-Bri

[RandFan]

Sorry, but I have to call B.S. on you there. Lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of the opposite, but it can be evidence of something else. See my previous post for some examples. Then I call B.S. right back on you. Lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of anything other than lacking knowledge.

[RandFan]

Did I ever claim otherwise?

Actually, yes.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...99#post1816499 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1816499#post1816499)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...75#post1832975 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1832975#post1832975)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...41#post1830441 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1830441#post1830441)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...09#post1829409 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1829409#post1829409)

[I less than three logic]

And what pray tell would that reason be? Whatever that reason is it most certainly cannot help your positions. In any event you were talking about life outside of our solar system. This meets that requirement to a small degree and further illustrates the increased likelihood of life as we add galaxies to the equations.
As I've stated before, Bri doesn't have the slightest clue what the Drake equation is for.

There was a good reason they limited it to this galaxy in that equation. The equation was developed to show an estimate of the likelihood of there being intelligent lifeforms we may be able to detect and communicate with. This limits us to a very small area of the universe, even a very small area of just the Milky Way because of the time it takes the signals to travel. It wouldn't have made any sense for the equation to worry about other galaxies, the closest being 25,000 light years away, because at that range it would take too long for the signals to bounce back and forth for any hope of communication. Also, the inverse squares law limits the distance we could hope to communicate within.

[RandFan]

See my previous post for some examples. I could only find one example.

For example, lacking knowledge of basic logic is evidence that you need to do more research into basic logic. Tautological. Lacking knowledge is evidence that you need more knowledge.

So, my point stands.

[RandFan]

As I've stated before, Bri doesn't have the slightest clue what the Drake equation is for. Clearly, how else could she argue that what is otherwise damning to her argument is a plus.

Bri simply isn't willing to accept positions that are counter to her world view.

[Bri]

No, since there is no evidence that prayer works and lots of evidence that prayer doesn't work. I know you think your little distraction is effective but it is not.

I didn't say that there wasn't evidence that prayer doesn't work. Certainly there have been studies that have shown that prayer doesn't work in some instances. What I said was that there is no evidence that prayer never works. Christians generally acknowledge that prayer doesn't always work, therefore in order to refute their belief you would have to provide evidence that prayer never works. Can you?

The sun will rise tomorrow: Lot's of evidence that it will and no evidence that it wont.

Completely in agreement here. However, it's a straw man because there is lots of evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow and little or no evidence that that prayer never works.

-Bri

[Bri]

Bri, that's just not honest. You know better. If you go back and look at the record you will find that you said outside of our solar system at least a dozen times. Outside of our Galaxy didn't get brought up until I noted Drake's equations.Did I ever claim otherwise?

Actually, yes.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...99#post1816499 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1816499#post1816499)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...75#post1832975 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1832975#post1832975)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...41#post1830441 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1830441#post1830441)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...09#post1829409 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1829409#post1829409)

Please quote the relevant part of any of the above posts where I claimed that I didn't say outside of the solar system before you mentioned Drake's equation. No, I said that we began talking about intelligent life elsewhere within the galaxy after you mentioned Drake's equation.

Both are valid counter-examples to the proposition that belief with little or no evidence is irrational, unless you believe that one of them is irrational. Do you?

-Bri

[RandFan]

I didn't say that there wasn't evidence that prayer doesn't work. Certainly there have been studies that have shown that prayer doesn't work in some instances. What I said was that there is no evidence that prayer never works. This really is meaningless as to whether or not belief in prayer is irrational.

Prayer (http://www.skepdic.com/prayer.html)

For an *SB to intercede would be for a being from the supernatural world to cause things to happen in the natural world that would not happen naturally.

...

Second, and more important, if *SBs could intervene in nature at will or if invisible energies could be directed by our intentions, then the order and lawfulness of the world of experience and of the world that science (http://www.skepdic.com/science.html) attempts to understand would be impossible. We are able to experience the world only because we perceive it to be an orderly and lawful world. If that order and lawfulness were impossible, then so would be the experience and understanding of it.

*Super Being

[Bri]

I could only find one example.

Tautological. Lacking knowledge is evidence that you need more knowledge.

So, my point stands.

Utterly silly. You claimed that "lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of anything other than lacking knowledge." Thanks for proving yourself wrong. As you said above, lacking is knowledge is evidence that you need more knowledge.

-Bri

[I less than three logic]

Utterly silly. You claimed that "lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of anything other than lacking knowledge." Thanks for proving yourself wrong. As you said above, lacking is knowledge is evidence that you need more knowledge.

-Bri
Really scrapping the bottom of the barrel to pull these out aren't you? I don't know about you, but I'm when attempting to understand something, lacking knowledge is the exact same thing as needing more knowledge.

[Bri]

Clearly, how else could she argue that what is otherwise damning to her argument is a plus.

My argument is that Drake's equation just as easily shows that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational depending on what estimates you use for the variables. In other words, the values of the variables is entirely speculation. This line from the Wikipedia article is quite telling:


fi, fc and L, like fl, are little more than guesses.

Therefore, the suggestion that something is irrational if there is little evidence to support it would be have to be true of the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. All available evidence indicates that the probability of the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy is greater than 0% and less than 100% -- the exact same probability that prayer works.

If you're willing to concede that it is irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, then I'll concede that belief that prayer works is irrational.

-Bri

[RandFan]

No, I said that we began talking about intelligent life elsewhere within the galaxy after you mentioned Drake's equation. Not true.

You've already acknowledged that the premise "there is zero evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" wouldn't preclude the belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system from being rational. 1st August 2006, 07:17 AM (not your first reference but this will do).

Odds of intelligent life outside of our solar system: See Drake Equation. If we assume Drake's equation (http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html) and we assume that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy then the odds are that there are at least 1,000 communicating civilizations in the galaxy. First mention of Drake's equation: 1st August 2006, 04:49 PM

[RandFan]

Utterly silly. You claimed that "lacking knowledge of something isn't evidence of anything other than lacking knowledge." Thanks for proving yourself wrong. As you said above, lacking is knowledge is evidence that you need more knowledge. Do you even know what the word Tautological means? It is a fallacy Bri.

[Bri]

I believe that your first discussion was about "extrasolar life". Dang, where are those goalposts. They were here a minute ago.

Yes, I did first discuss extrasolar life. As I already explained, Drake's equation doesn't include other galaxies, so it makes sense to discuss whether it is irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. This belief is also a belief with little evidence, so as long as you accept that it is a rational belief it is also a valid counter-example to your argument.

So, do you think that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational?

BTW, it's easy to remove the term concerning whether or not the intelligent civilizations can and are willing to communicate (by setting it to 1.0), so there's no need to insist on it being part of the discussion unless you want to, although it would also be valid to discuss whether it is irrational to believe (as members of SETI likely do) that other communicating civilizations exist in the galaxy. This belief is also a belief with little evidence, so as long as you accept that it is a rational belief it is also a valid counter-example to your argument.

So, do you think that belief that communicating intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational?

-Bri

[Bri]

No, I said that we began talking about intelligent life elsewhere within the galaxy after you mentioned Drake's equation.
Not true.

???

You've already acknowledged that the premise "there is zero evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" wouldn't preclude the belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system from being rational.
1st August 2006, 07:17 AM (not your first reference but this will do).

This quote shows me talking about intelligent life elsewhere without restricting it to the galaxy.

Odds of intelligent life outside of our solar system: See Drake Equation. If we assume Drake's equation and we assume that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy then the odds are that there are at least 1,000 communicating civilizations in the galaxy.
First mention of Drake's equation: 1st August 2006, 04:49 PM

This quote shows you afterwards mentioning Drake's equation.

Isn't that an example of what I said (that we started talking about intelligent life within the galaxy after you mentioned Drake's equation)? I admit that after you mentioned Drake's equation we started talking about both (since Drake's equation mentions only intelligent life within the galaxy and we had previously discussed intelligent life anywhere in the universe), but I don't recall restricting the discussion to intelligent life within the galaxy before you brought it up, and your example doesn't indicate otherwise.

Nonetheless, we have talked about many examples that would seem to counter the argument that belief with little evidence is irrational. The example of belief in the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy seems to be a valid counter-example, as would the example of the belief held by many SETI members in the existence of communicating intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy.

-Bri

[Bri]

Do you even know what the word Tautological means? It is a fallacy Bri.

Perhaps you'd better define it for me as you're using it. I don't think that "lacking knowledge" and "needing more knowledge" is a tautology. It seems to me that one can lack knowledge without needing more knowledge, but perhaps you're correct and I don't know what the word means.

Meanwhile, here's another example: My lack of knowledge of driving large vehicles is evidence that I should refrain from driving a bus. Still a tautology?

-Bri

[RandFan]

This belief is also a belief with little evidence... This is an assertion that is not accepted and it has been explained time and time again to you why we don't accept it. There is reason based on observation of empirical evidence and statistics. You don't have to like that but it is so.

There is no similar observation of empirical evidence and statistics for prayer.

So, do you think that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational? Let's stick to the universe. Drakes question deals with the Galaxy but since you originally dealt with the universe we can easily apply his equation to the universe which only increases the likelihood that there is intelligent life in the universe.

So, do you think that belief that communicating intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational? It's rational to come to a belief that their is a probability of life in the universe and therefore it is rational.

[RandFan]

Isn't that an example of what I said (that we started talking about intelligent life within the galaxy after you mentioned Drake's equation)? Please do try and keep up.


Okay. Multiply that times a trillion galaxies.

Unless you're saying that it's irrational to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in this galaxy, there is no need to bring the entire universe into the equation. Yes, there IS a need to bring the entire universe into the equation because that was the initial premise.

[Bri]

This is an assertion that is not accepted and it has been explained time and time again to you why we don't accept it. There is reason based on observation of empirical evidence and statistics. You don't have to like that but it is so.

You say there is evidence, I say that the evidence is entirely speculative given that it shows that the number of such civilizations are far fewer than 1 given certain estimations of the values.

There is no similar observation of empirical evidence and statistics for prayer.

Did I miss the observation of empirical evidence and statistics for the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy? I must have missed it. What I've seen is all speculation, just like the evidence that prayer works. Can you please post the evidence that isn't speculation?

Let's stick to the universe.

Naaah, let's stick to the galaxy. Unless you are saying that belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is irrational. Is that what you saying?

-Bri

[Bri]

Please do try and keep up.

Yes, there IS a need to bring the entire universe into the equation because that was the initial premise.

No, the initial premise is and always has been that I can provide examples that are counter to the suggestion that belief in something is irrational if there is little evidence to support it.

Until you brought Drake's equation into it, the example I was using was intelligent life elsewhere in the universe (among others, such as the Deist God and belief that there are no gods). Now, the example I am using is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. Unless you are claiming that the latter is irrational, it's still within the initial premise.

You're not claiming that the latter is irrational are you?

-Bri

[drkitten]

So, "you want to help me" is "you actively desire to help me".

So, you either actively desire to help me or you don't.
You are either with me or you are against me.

Yes, and no. Someone who has never heard of you does not actively desire to help you -- but is not against you, either.



I want to eat a candy bar.
I want to lose weight.

Which is true?

Nothing prevents people from having incompatible, but not formally contradictory, desires.

You're still wrong, rhetoric and bluster aside.

[Kopji]

BERLIN - A seven-member family faces eviction from an east Berlin apartment tower after neighbors complained about loud prayer sessions that keep the whole building awake at night, a German newspaper said on Thursday.

“I really don’t want to disturb the neighbors but the high volume is needed in the battle against the devil,”...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14387512/

I think that prayer could have a measurable effect if it is understand as a meditation that moves them to action or commitment - to actually do something or strengthen commitment to an endeavor. The kind of prayer in Berlin seems a little silly, but if it moved the family to do certain things it might have a measurable effect.

The 'workingness' of prayer says nothing about the existence of a deity though. If prayers are answered, we answer prayers.

An implication of the dialog between Bertrand Russell and the lady is that a deity that asks for faith needs at least to show why other deities with different demands - are inferior.

[RandFan]

Perhaps you'd better define it for me as you're using it. I don't think that "lacking knowledge" and "needing more knowledge" is a tautology. Useless repetition; "to say that something is `adequate enough' is a tautology"


It seems to me that one can lack knowledge without needing more knowledge, but perhaps you're correct and I don't know what the word means.This would seem to be at odds with your original argument.

Meanwhile, here's another example: My lack of knowledge of driving large vehicles is evidence that I should refrain from driving a bus. Still a tautology?I will grant that your lack of knowledge supports the proposition that you should not drive a bus.

[RandFan]

Yes, and no. Someone who has never heard of you does not actively desire to help you -- but is not against you, either. I'm not talking about someone who knows me. Please to stick with the context of what I'm talking about. It is possible to actively desire to help someone and to actively desire not to help someone.

When George Bush uttered, you are either against us or you are for us he was engaging in a false choice. NOT because those he was speaking to did not know us.

Nothing prevents people from having incompatible, but not formally contradictory, desires. Please to explain?

And please to reconcile with the following:

The fallacy of this type of argument is that it tries to eliminate the middle ground. A typical false choice is the assertion "You are either with me or you are against me." The chooser is forced to decide between absolute commitment or absolute non-commitment. Thus, the possibility of compromise is discounted. Such absolutism is applicable in science and mathematics, in which problems can have one and only one solution. In philosophy, however, there are few if any absolutes. Can you do a bit better than gainsaying?

You're still wrong, rhetoric and bluster aside.Mr. Pot, please meet Mrs. Kettle.

[RandFan]

Nothing prevents people from having incompatible, but not formally contradictory, desires. This one has really got me stumped. Incompatible but not formally contradictory?

Ok, then please to answer the question. What do I want?

John actively desires to go to the fair.
John actively desires to keep his job.
If John goes to the fair he will lose his job.

What does John actively desire?

[RandFan]

No, the initial premise is and always has been that I can provide examples that are counter to the suggestion that belief in something is irrational if there is little evidence to support it. Which you acknowledge was the belief that there was inteligent life in the universe, right? Let's stick to that.

You're not claiming that the latter is irrational are you?No, I just think a much better argument can be made for the universe so if you don't mind let's put the goal posts back to where they were, ok?