Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
You spoke of an eternally existing intelligent being; what else could you possibly be talking about???
Indeed, Christians call something that is eternal, all powerful, all knowing and all present God, but what do YOU call it?
If I met someone who were eternal, all powerful, knew everything, and present everywhere, how would I know they were, unless I was? Am I just supposed to just take their word for it?
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:54 amDo you think that, IF you met an Omnipotent being you wouldn't know?
That is correct; I would have no way of knowing.
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:54 amThat aside, My question still stands, what would you call something ( a force, energy, whatever) that has always existed, that effects everything, all the time, that, without it, nothing would exist?
If it were only a force or energy, I would call it a force or energy. If it were intelligent and able to communicate with me, I would call it whatever it wants to be called.
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:33 amGreat and we Christian, choose to call that, GOD.
Why? Because the term refers, in classical theism, to something that has those attributes.
Yes I know that; and of course there is a lot more to the being you guys call God than just all knowing, all powerful, and present everywhere.
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:33 amSo, Would you agree, going over all that was discussed here:
Things that come into being require something to cause them or act upon them to come into being?
What do you mean by “come into being”? Do you mean created from nothing? Because that would go against the 1st law of Thermodynamics which says nothing is neither created nor destroyed; it only changes forms. If you mean something else; please explain.
PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:33 amThings that move/change from on state to another, require something outside themselves to act on them to do so?
You mean like when energy converts to matter, or matter converts to energy? I don’t think it is acting outside of itself when this happens.
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
The 1st mentioned study (cardiac patients in San Francisco General Medical Center) from 30 years ago has clear statistical problems. The researcher apparently didn't bother to first run his experimental protocol past researchers who are familiar with sources of methodological and statistical pitfalls.
Related pitfalls arise when paranormal researchers fail to consult a magician before doing an experiment, e.g., testing someone who claims to be able to bend a fork with their mind.
That's a rather extraordinary claim. Please provide your extraordinary evidence to support it.
Good one!
The claim itself is ordinary, maybe even heterological.
But mostly, the claim is useful - keeps me from believing that the Earth is flat, that not vaccinating my kids is safer than not, that cell phones cause cancer, that my interior decorator should use Feng Shui, or that I should even have an interior decorator.
That's a rather extraordinary claim. Please provide your extraordinary evidence to support it.
Good one!
The claim itself is ordinary, maybe even heterological.
But mostly, the claim is useful - keeps me from believing that the Earth is flat, that not vaccinating my kids is safer than not, that cell phones cause cancer, that my interior decorator should use Feng Shui, or that I should even have an interior decorator.
So, are you saying that NOT vaccinating your children, is safer than NOT vaccinating your children?
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
That's a rather extraordinary claim. Please provide your extraordinary evidence to support it.
Good one!
The claim itself is ordinary, maybe even heterological.
But mostly, the claim is useful - keeps me from believing that the Earth is flat, that not vaccinating my kids is safer than not, that cell phones cause cancer, that my interior decorator should use Feng Shui, or that I should even have an interior decorator.
So, are you saying that NOT vaccinating your children, is safer than NOT vaccinating your children?
The 1st mentioned study (cardiac patients in San Francisco General Medical Center) from 30 years ago has clear statistical problems. The researcher apparently didn't bother to first run his experimental protocol past researchers who are familiar with sources of methodological and statistical pitfalls.
Related pitfalls arise when paranormal researchers fail to consult a magician before doing an experiment, e.g., testing someone who claims to be able to bend a fork with their mind.
The 1st mentioned study (cardiac patients in San Francisco General Medical Center) from 30 years ago has clear statistical problems. The researcher apparently didn't bother to first run his experimental protocol past researchers who are familiar with sources of methodological and statistical pitfalls.
Related pitfalls arise when paranormal researchers fail to consult a magician before doing an experiment, e.g., testing someone who claims to be able to bend a fork with their mind.
If one believes in God, one is asserting(claiming) that God exists.
Claiming that God exists, is a rather ordinary claim. The only people who think it's extraordinary, are those who are spiritually blind.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
The 1st mentioned study (cardiac patients in San Francisco General Medical Center) from 30 years ago has clear statistical problems. The researcher apparently didn't bother to first run his experimental protocol past researchers who are familiar with sources of methodological and statistical pitfalls.
Related pitfalls arise when paranormal researchers fail to consult a magician before doing an experiment, e.g., testing someone who claims to be able to bend a fork with their mind.
Belief in God is not really an extraordinary claim - most of the world believes in God so it's quite ordinary.
Belief in God is not really a claim; the claim is what those beliefs consist of. That is where the extraordinary claims are.
I happen to agree with Nicki, Kenny, and Rick here. I have little more than hand-waving arguments for or against the mere existence of God. So claims either way can hardly be declared extraordinary.
The problem (and interesting part) occurs when believers make claims of supernatural influence on the natural world, but then disagree with or ignore scientific evidence to the contrary. For example, evidence of miracles for sainthood or cures at Lourdes doesn't come anywhere close to meeting scientific standards.
Belief in the efficacy of prayer is fine, but don't claim in the next breadth that serious investigative flaws do not plague the supporting experimental studies. Go ahead and believe that Uri Geller can bend a spoon with his mind when no one is video recording, but also admit that actual video clearly shows him bending spoons with his hand.
The 1st mentioned study (cardiac patients in San Francisco General Medical Center) from 30 years ago has clear statistical problems. The researcher apparently didn't bother to first run his experimental protocol past researchers who are familiar with sources of methodological and statistical pitfalls.
Related pitfalls arise when paranormal researchers fail to consult a magician before doing an experiment, e.g., testing someone who claims to be able to bend a fork with their mind.
Belief in God is not really an extraordinary claim - most of the world believes in God so it's quite ordinary.
Belief in God is not really a claim; the claim is what those beliefs consist of. That is where the extraordinary claims are.
I happen to agree with Nicki, Kenny, and Rick here. I have little more than hand-waving arguments for or against the mere existence of God. So claims either way can hardly be declared extraordinary.
The problem (and interesting part) occurs when believers make claims of supernatural influence on the natural world, but then disagree with or ignore scientific evidence to the contrary. For example, evidence of miracles for sainthood or cures at Lourdes doesn't come anywhere close to meeting scientific standards.
Belief in the efficacy of prayer is fine, but don't claim in the next breadth that serious investigative flaws do not plague the supporting experimental studies. Go ahead and believe that Uri Geller can bend a spoon with his mind when no one is video recording, but also admit that actual video clearly shows him bending spoons with his hand.
I find it interesting that you used the phrase “extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence” in the context of a person claiming to bend spoons with his mind, and somehow after everybody and their mother pipes in, it somehow moved from spoon bending to belief in God.
With that said, nobody applies that phrase to believing in God. Do you really think if a theist claimed they believe in God, that some idiot skeptic is going to reply, “extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence, provide extra ordinary evidence supporting your claim that you actually believe in God!” That would be foolish. In the real-world theist will claim God did this, God’s son did that; God’s prophet did this…. Etc. etc. which would prompt the skeptic to proclaim it an extra ordinary claim requiring extra ordinary amount of evidence that God, his son, or his prophet actually did as claimed. That is the point I was trying to make.
Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
The challenge with validating prayer for a scientific study, is that next to none have been done. But there is also the issue that most Christians understand, and that is, God is NOT AN AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE! As if one sticks a prayer in, and out pop's God making that prayer become a reality. He does not work like that. He answers prayers according to His will for a particular situation. So, we all pray many prayers that God chooses either not to answer, or He might provide something different or more important. We pray for healing - and yet people we pray for still die. And this is what the Bible says.
The Bible tells us our prayers are effective when prayed as lining up with God's will. Yet, we can't always know what His will is. And nor can we always know just HOW a certain prayer was answered - as the outcome might surprise or dismay us. Sometimes, NO answer is still an answer. So, the reality is, the way God uses our prayers - or not - if often a mystery. Because He's thinking about eternal consequences, and not necessarily just about our immediate contexts. We likely pray all the time for things God doesn't see as being good for us. We can't know these things. Point is, one could never design a study that would allow an accurate measure of outcomes - not per the scientific method, anyway. But every Christian can confirm that God has responded to some impassioned prayer, and that they realize this to be the case.
Philip wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:02 pm
The challenge with validating prayer for a scientific study, is that next to none have been done. But there is also the issue that most Christians understand, and that is, God is NOT AN AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE! As if one sticks a prayer in, and out pop's God making that prayer become a reality. He does not work like that. He answers prayers according to His will for a particular situation. So, we all pray many prayers that God chooses either not to answer, or He might provide something different or more important. We pray for healing - and yet people we pray for still die. And this is what the Bible says.
The Bible tells us our prayers are effective when prayed as lining up with God's will. Yet, we can't always know what His will is. And nor can we always know just HOW a certain prayer was answered - as the outcome might surprise or dismay us. Sometimes, NO answer is still an answer. So, the reality is, the way God uses our prayers - or not - if often a mystery. Because He's thinking about eternal consequences, and not necessarily just about our immediate contexts. We likely pray all the time for things God doesn't see as being good for us. We can't know these things. Point is, one could never design a study that would allow an accurate measure of outcomes - not per the scientific method, anyway. But every Christian can confirm that God has responded to some impassioned prayer, and that they realize this to be the case.
So why pray? (not a thank-you type prayer, but a request type prayer) If I want “X” to happen (“X” could be my sick mother getting past her illness, a troubled person getting past his struggles, a lost person finding his way, etc. etc.) and I pray to God for help, if we assume God knows everything then logic will tell us that God has already decided if “X” is going to take place or not before we decided to pray; do you agree? This would mean this decision concerning "X" is God’s will; Do you agree? So if I pray for God to allow “X” to happen and God has decided not to let “X” happen, I am asking God to go against his will to please me; an arrogant position to take; however if God has decided to allow “X” to happen before I even prayed for it, my prayer is useless. Do you agree? So why pray?
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
That's a rather extraordinary claim. Please provide your extraordinary evidence to support it.
Good one!
The claim itself is ordinary, maybe even heterological.
Says who? Just because it suits you to proclaim it ordinary or heterological? There is nothing ordinary about the claim nor any reason to think it does not apply to itself (special pleading anyone?). In fact, I would venture an educated guess that in most cases, the exact opposite is claimed, i.e. the law of parsimony (Occam's razor) where simpler solutions are more likely to be correct even for complex problems. But for some reason, when it comes to the subject of theism in general and God in particular, all of a sudden parsimony be damned, it's extraordinary evidence you seek. It's just a little disingenuous (okay, maybe a lot more than a little).
Morny wrote: ↑Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:55 amBut mostly, the claim is useful - keeps me from believing that the Earth is flat, that not vaccinating my kids is safer than not, that cell phones cause cancer, that my interior decorator should use Feng Shui, or that I should even have an interior decorator.
Er, no, parsimony works a whole lot better. The problem is it will keep you consistent.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
