Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Atheist Prayer Argument Is A Dull Generalisation Predicated On INEXPERIENCE
nwr
Member
Posts: 6421
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 46 of 55 (912335)
08-25-2023 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
08-25-2023 6:59 AM


mike the wiz in Message 32 writes:
Percy you can't surprise me with things because the chances are I will know them already.
It's good to hear that mike the wiz knows a lot.
://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/7021-testimonies-of-christianity-i-have-collected/&tab=comments#comment-182729 (this is a link to the post I wrote)
But he apparently does not know how to post a link.
[/sarcasm]

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2023 6:59 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9531
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 47 of 55 (912336)
08-25-2023 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nwr
08-25-2023 1:31 PM


nwr writes:
Yes, mike the wiz has a blog. And it is very preachy
Of course he has!
He's also the guy that knows the name of every logical fallacy ever created but manages to make them in every post. It's interesting to watch.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nwr, posted 08-25-2023 1:31 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-25-2023 4:19 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4504
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 48 of 55 (912341)
08-25-2023 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tangle
08-25-2023 1:57 PM


He's also the guy that knows the name of every logical fallacy ever created but manages to make them in every post. It's interesting to watch.
I think he invented most of them.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 08-25-2023 1:57 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 49 of 55 (912342)
08-25-2023 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mike the wiz
08-25-2023 6:27 AM


mike the wiz writes:
Percy writes:
For validation of miracles you need an interrupted chain of evidence and repeated and replicated analyses. Lacking that the miracles are articles of faith, not science.
That there is no general science to validate miracles pretty much doesn't touch anything that I said.
I did not accept by neurotic agreement with you that I must validate miracles. I was arguing that the atheists I have heard and come across have argued from their own ignorance of them, their own inexperience.
You are trying to get me to score through a goal hoop which is solid and can't be scored through.
This seems contradictory to your earlier comment about if "one true miracle occurs on earth beyond question." This requires a method of validating miracles "beyond question." It's contradictory to claim it possible to unquestionably show a miracle has occurred while also claiming there is no way of doing this.
Percy writes:
If the reality is that prayers are not answered generally, then there can't be many answered prayers to offer as evidence. But if someone wants to believe their prayers have been answered what's wrong with that? Their belief isn't forcing anyone else to believe, although it is a bit tedious listening to a proselytizer testifying to God's presence in their life and how He has answered their prayers.
It follows there can't be many answered prayers as evidence but like you said in your verbose responses of which I cannot address all, it depends who you are praying to.
Who do you think you're praying to, and why do you think that?
In the NT it says the natural man cannot understand spiritual things. It makes it pretty clear that God only answers those who genuinely believe and seek in truth.
How do you know what the NT says is true?
Hebrews 11 is it? Where it says, "He who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those that seek Him."
You are really laser focused on the Christian canon. What about other canons?
It would seem unlikely that God would ever put Himself forward as a guinea pig for arrogant people like you demanding scientific evidence. You are merely a human being, nothing more.
Yep, not confrontational at all.
Percy writes:
How do you tell the difference between a miracle and something science can't explain yet?
You really seem to be trying hard to get me to make a case for miracles.
You introduced miracles into the conversation asking about "if one true miracle occurs on earth beyond question." How do you establish that such a miracle has occurred?
But this sounds like an appeal-to-the-future fallacy.
I don't know what that means, but you need to explain how you establish that a miracle has unquestionably happened.
In a way you can always answer by making this appeal. It can seem the only way you can get some things for example is by design, and a designer ticks all the boxes but you could just say, "how do you know it's something science can't yet explain?"
Now you're substituting "designer" for "miracle," and your question becomes about "if one true designer is found on earth beyond question." How do you establish that you've unquestionably found a designer?
The point is at what stage does "coincidental beyond what chance would allow" become silly.
And next you describe something you find coincidental beyond chance:
Just as a hypothetical. If God says, "go to this place" which is a certain location. Then He says, "go to this shop", where beforehand you are looking for answers for why your goods were stolen from your property and were angry at God, if you then enter the shop and your stolen things are for sale, was it just something science has no answer for yet?
If for you this is a miracle then that's fine. But if you think others should also consider it a miracle then you need some data, some evidence.
In that sense, you can never have an answered prayer. You would be a sort of stubborn idiot PRETENDING science always took precedent.
No one has said science always takes precedence. In matters of faith it does not. If you want to believe based on faith that finding your stolen things was a miracle then I doubt many would have a problem with that. But if you're going to claim that everyone should accept that it's unquestionably a miracle then you've got a bit of work to do.
(taken from the testimony of Andrew Owen, iirc)
I have written a few more from memory, you can read them here;Bot Verification
(there may be more in that thread that might satisfy some of your responses, I don't know.)
This is a bare link. Is there something from it that you'd like to introduce into the discussion?
Remember my emphasis is upon atheists I have genuinely heard argue the things I complained about in the opening message.
As I said in my original reply, they didn't really sound like arguments atheists would make. They sounded more like parodies of atheist arguments.
Even on an atheist-talk day the speaker made the argument that God doesn't answer prayer, he used the analogy of an email spam box with too many emails to handle for one person. It is a well known argument, but the assumptions of this popular argument do the very thing you mentioned is a problem; they amalgamate many mutually exclusive religious faiths.
You're a smart boy, figure it out.
You're being confrontational again. If there was point in there I couldn't find it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 08-25-2023 6:27 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
driewerf
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 08-14-2010


(5)
Message 50 of 55 (912631)
09-20-2023 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
08-18-2023 3:17 PM


MtW: Black swans are found in south Australia and Tasmania.
Atheists; "I don't know anyone that has seen a black swan in New York, none of my friends do. Indeed if I ask many people from all over the world who I know online they also don't know of any and don't know anyone that does, therefore they don't exist."
So, MtW is going to argue that atheists arguments against the efficacy of prayer are bogus. That’s nice. But one needs to ask this: why doesn’t he use real atheist quotes? Why does he need to start with a fictional dialogue that - at least raises the suspicion of constructing a straw man?
MtW: This is the atheists general argument for prayer.
The usual argument goes something like this with many of the popular atheist speakers; "children get bad illnesses, parents are praying all over the world, if prayer is real show some scientific proof of it. The truth is prayer doesn't work." (or something like this as an argument)
Again a made up argument. Or at least a very oversimplified version of what atheists say. Note that if popular atheists speakers use the (lack of) efficacy of prayer as an argument, it would be very easy to quote them. But we get some very general, self produced straw man argument.
So there is actually nothing factual in MtW’s post so far. It’s all made up by him.
MtW: What is the problem with the argument? Well it depends on the silent-assumption that God is a being made in the image of human reason, that should and would do everything a human being says God should and would do. (not a person filled with biases please note, like if you argue for answered prayer as a believer.)
No. What the problem is with this argument is that it has been made up by MtW. That it puts words in mouths of people that never said or wrote these words.
But to pick up the essence, if atheists challenge the benevolence of God, it’s because Christians portray god as benevolent.
MtW: So yes, if your beliefs are a sort of general theism where God is just a nice guy then you are right, generally prayers are landing on deaf ears.
No, Christians – at least some - of them portray god as benevolent, good, loving, ultimately good etc.
By blessing a recurring period of time, God promises to be man's benefactor through the whole course of human history! The blessing invokes God's favor, and its primary intent is that God will be our spiritual benefactor. It does, however, include the physical as well.
Source:
What the Bible says about God's Benevolence (bibletools.org)
When God says he plans for all of us to have a future with hope, God makes a sacred promise to help us and not harm us. In turn, we should have faith in God and be joyful in the knowledge that God is very present in our lives!
So today, say a prayer of petition, and rest assured that you will be saying a prayer of gratitude in the near future.
Source: A Benevolent God - Bruce L. Hartman - Asheville, NC (brucelhartman.com)
Note the ‘rest assured’!
But in His benevolence God does desire good for all His creation. All who end in hell will do so contrary to His good plan for their lives. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance!
There’s another truth about God’s benevolence: He delights in His children. He is the giver of every good and perfect gift. Scripture suggests He’s not stingy, but wants to pour out good on us!
Source: Our Benevolent God (gbs.edu)
Little sting: note the difference, no made up quote, all quotes with links to the original source.
MtW: However, if God is the Lord God of the bible, then we are made in God's image and we are told it's a sinful, fallen world and we have a sinful, fallen nature. Under this scenario, like with the black swan, you only really get pockets of true died-in-the-wool believers that truly have God's spirit being born again spiritually as Jesus mentioned, and these are the people that do get their prayers answered, I can testify to.
This of course is an easy opt out. Prayer not answered – you’re not a real Christian. Or there should be another unambiguous way of telling the “true died-in-the-wool believers” from the not-so-real Christians. And one on which MtW can’t backpedal!
On top of that, this paragraph rests on an “IF”, a big IF, actually the whole “IF” that needs to be proven. Nowhere below shall MtW attempt to validate this “IF”.
MtW: However they are not answered under the assumptions of a general theism. Jesus said for example, "in this world you will have trouble, but do not fear I have overcome the world."
Prayers aren’t also answered under the assumption that there isn’t anyone answering them. So we have two possible conclusions out of the non-answer of prayers: Gods is selectively deaf or there is no god at all. But does a selective god fit the image that Christians try to give us of god: all benevolent, all powerful and all-knowing? That challenge has never been addressed by a Christian apologetic. And MtW is creating a verbal smoke screen to hide the fact that he can’t address it neither.
MtW: So when an atheist says to us, "God hasn't cured cancer, God hasn't fixed the world", they are labouring under the delusion that God wants to fix the world.
MtW is trunking the atheist counterargument. Which shouldn’t be a surprise since until now he hasn’t quoted any atheist (and wont do so further down). The atheist argument is that god allows suffering to happen and that hence at least one of the following attributes that christians claim about god doesn’t apply: omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent. That part of the atheist argument MtW omitted. And lying by omission is still lying.
The Seven Levels of Lying | Christianity Today
What Is the Sin of Omission? Its Definition and Consequences (christianity.com)
It shows christians that at least some aspects of their teachings are inconsistent with themselves and with reality.
MtW: In fact it says in the New Testament that this, "world and it's desires are passing away but he that does the will of God will abide forever." (see how assumptions change if we don't just go with atheists that don't open the bible?)
It might indeed be that “everything changes with assumptions” but that’s all you have, assumptions. MtW doesn’t offer any way to check your assumptions against reality.
MtW: So under Christianity at least, God isn't going to employ large-scale fixes, because Jesus didn't come and die on the cross to save the earth but the eternal soul, hence the person will abide forever but the world will, "pass away".
Under atheism too, god isn’t going to fix anything. For the good and simple reason that there is no god to fix the world. And what do we see: indeed no god fixing stuff. So MtW’s argument is without any value because a total different conclusion can be reached.
MtW: Is the atheist general prayer argument one of the most annoying? Yes, because of their inconsistent behaviour.
Or because it can’t be refuted. Because it shows a blatant inconsistency in the Christian narrative. God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent but doesn’t fix (doesn’t want or cannot fix) any suffering. He has a magnificent plan, but can cast that plan aside when prayers are answered. But if there is a big magnificent divine plan, what good is it to pray? God’s plan will unroll anyway. Either the cancer patient over whom is prayed will recover, as part of the big plan or he won’t. Or should god modify his Big Plan, jut because someone is prayed over? What worth is his Plan than?
MtW: Because if we get an answered prayer then according to atheists we are fallible fools that commit post hoc reasoning and confirmation bias and are riddled with all sorts of foibles.
It’s very simple: apply critical analysis on a real case, and we will see how objective, unbiased you guys are. The testing of the cake is in the eating. Well, show us a case.
MtW: But when it comes to prayer not getting answered we are supposed to believe humans are all of a sudden NOT these fallible, bias-ridden creatures but are all of a sudden making perfect judgements about what God would or should do if God exists.
Of course not. That is why there are things like statistical analysis, double blind testing, repeated testing, peer review and so on. To eliminate or minimize the bias.
See, that’s the difference between a sceptic and a believer. A sceptic know bias and fallibility exist and set up mechanisms to neutralize them. A believer goes in a tantrum and is offended when pointed out that these things apply to him too.
MtW: You can't win.
Apply the things mentioned above, and you guys will have made a step forward “winning”.
MtW: Conclusion; so we are basically uselessly inept fallible apes if our prayers are answered but if we say they're not we're perfect morally-pure all-knowing Einstiens that know how God should exactly behave.
MtW: If you instead want to be an informed atheist that is consistent, you have to look into what you preach. You preach humans are fallible and make all sorts of mistakes and can't be trusted, which means this would not place you in a good position to judge an all-knowing God. Nor would your subjective moral-commands be regarded logically as anything more than favourite flavour of icecream. (arbitrary and baseless, as evolved apes)
And there again, MtW misrepresents that what he is raging against. Because atheists - actually, scientists – do practice what they “preach”. Knowing that humans are fallible and prone to bias mechanisms have been devised to minimize these. Show me any believer who has done this when it comes to investigating his cherished believes.
MtW: Get over yourself. Inexperience doesn't count as experience, if a witness sees Jack the ripper it doesn't matter if most people didn't, so no, we don't have to conclude that the majority of people are correct in saying that the ripper doesn't look like what the witness reported them to have looked like.
Again, what use is it to argue with a fictional example, instead of a real case? Is it that the real cases will show you wrong. That there are no really answered prayers?
MtW: Disclaimer; I am not trying to provide a persuasive argument for prayer being real.
Good, MtW would have failed so far.
MtW: As far as I am concerned the correct people already know God answers prayer being of a noble conscience and honestly seeking the true answers according to God's will, in a position of integrity. I am not covering the philosophical, "problem of evil and suffering" as it is known.
Except for all the prayers of the Holocaust victims, or for all the prayers of the victims of the Rwanda Genocide, or for all the prayers of the victims of the Moroccan Earthquake and so on. Oh, they were just not of “noble conscience” or not part of god’s Big Plan, or god answered with “No”. Or any other post hoc (ir)rationalization.
MtW: I am also NOT invalidating atheist concerns when it comes to genuinely being puzzled as to why God would allow the suffering of innocent children for example. I am NOT saying that this is not a legitimate concern. ALL PEOPLE struggle with the negatives that exist, and the questions are honestly asked. That isn't the issue.
For not being the issue, MtW mentions it quite a lot of times.
MtW: The issue is this; does it make rational sense to argue limited humans could ever compete with understanding these matters on an omniscient level? Does it make logical sense to see human atheists as the standard?
At least a better standard than the god you worship. People do try to find cures for cancer. Try to rescue earthquake victims. Go to blood and plasma donation centres, distribute food and blankets. Welcomed Ukrainian refugees. It doesn’t take to be “omniscient”. Even with a limited knowledge humans know that these actions are needed. And that makes them better than the god you worship, for they - we - act.
MtW: Well if you are really rational would would say, "no, because an all-knowing God can have reasons only they can fully understand rather that what just seems like truisms to us, which may in fact only represent simplified concepts on our own inferior level."
A truly rational person would say that it doesn’t make any difference whether there is a god or not. We’re on our own.
MtW: After all we can't really compete in any other areas can we? For example do you know any atheists have have invented any contraflow lungs or a brain or metamorphosis? But these would all be attributable to God's level of understanding under the biblical worldview.
Irrelevant. Prove that your god did “invent” these things. And let him take credit – blame – for the lice, the Ebola virus and earthquakes too.
MtW: Conclusion; It doesn't matter how wide and far ignorance extends, it cannot be counted as experience and knowledge. Black swans simply exist.
My conclusion: MtW has written a completely fact free rant that has no relationship with reality at all. The total absence or real life examples, of real referenced quotes show this. On the contrary he can only make his points with fictional examples.
He complains that atheists see Christians as gullible and provides a prime example of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 08-18-2023 3:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 09-20-2023 10:46 AM driewerf has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


(4)
Message 51 of 55 (912632)
09-20-2023 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by driewerf
09-20-2023 6:34 AM


I had a hard time keeping straight what was from mike the wiz and what was from driewerf, so I reformatted the above post to make it easier for me to read. I also added back in some missing italics in the quoted sections:
driewerf:
mike the wiz writes:
Black swans are found in south Australia and Tasmania.
Atheists; "I don't know anyone that has seen a black swan in New York, none of my friends do. Indeed if I ask many people from all over the world who I know online they also don't know of any and don't know anyone that does, therefore they don't exist."
So, MtW is going to argue that atheists arguments against the efficacy of prayer are bogus. That’s nice. But one needs to ask this: why doesn’t he use real atheist quotes? Why does he need to start with a fictional dialogue that - at least raises the suspicion of constructing a straw man?
This is the atheists general argument for prayer.
The usual argument goes something like this with many of the popular atheist speakers; "children get bad illnesses, parents are praying all over the world, if prayer is real show some scientific proof of it. The truth is prayer doesn't work." (or something like this as an argument)
Again a made up argument. Or at least a very oversimplified version of what atheists say. Note that if popular atheists speakers use the (lack of) efficacy of prayer as an argument, it would be very easy to quote them. But we get some very general, self produced straw man argument.
So there is actually nothing factual in MtW’s post so far. It’s all made up by him.
What is the problem with the argument? Well it depends on the silent-assumption that God is a being made in the image of human reason, that should and would do everything a human being says God should and would do. (not a person filled with biases please note, like if you argue for answered prayer as a believer.)
No. What the problem is with this argument is that it has been made up by MtW. That it puts words in mouths of people that never said or wrote these words.
But to pick up the essence, if atheists challenge the benevolence of God, it’s because Christians portray god as benevolent.
So yes, if your beliefs are a sort of general theism where God is just a nice guy then you are right, generally prayers are landing on deaf ears.
No, Christians – at least some - of them portray god as benevolent, good, loving, ultimately good etc.
By blessing a recurring period of time, God promises to be man's benefactor through the whole course of human history! The blessing invokes God's favor, and its primary intent is that God will be our spiritual benefactor. It does, however, include the physical as well.
Source:
What the Bible says about God's Benevolence (bibletools.org)
When God says he plans for all of us to have a future with hope, God makes a sacred promise to help us and not harm us. In turn, we should have faith in God and be joyful in the knowledge that God is very present in our lives!
So today, say a prayer of petition, and rest assured that you will be saying a prayer of gratitude in the near future.
Source: A Benevolent God - Bruce L. Hartman - Asheville, NC (brucelhartman.com)
Note the ‘rest assured’!
But in His benevolence God does desire good for all His creation. All who end in hell will do so contrary to His good plan for their lives. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance!
There’s another truth about God’s benevolence: He delights in His children. He is the giver of every good and perfect gift. Scripture suggests He’s not stingy, but wants to pour out good on us!
Source: Our Benevolent God (gbs.edu)
Little sting: note the difference, no made up quote, all quotes with links to the original source.
However, if God is the Lord God of the bible, then we are made in God's image and we are told it's a sinful, fallen world and we have a sinful, fallen nature. Under this scenario, like with the black swan, you only really get pockets of true died-in-the-wool believers that truly have God's spirit being born again spiritually as Jesus mentioned, and these are the people that do get their prayers answered, I can testify to.
This of course is an easy opt out. Prayer not answered – you’re not a real Christian. Or there should be another unambiguous way of telling the “true died-in-the-wool believers” from the not-so-real Christians. And one on which MtW can’t backpedal!
On top of that, this paragraph rests on an “IF”, a big IF, actually the whole “IF” that needs to be proven. Nowhere below shall MtW attempt to validate this “IF”.
However they are not answered under the assumptions of a general theism. Jesus said for example, "in this world you will have trouble, but do not fear I have overcome the world."
Prayers aren’t also answered under the assumption that there isn’t anyone answering them. So we have two possible conclusions out of the non-answer of prayers: Gods is selectively deaf or there is no god at all. But does a selective god fit the image that Christians try to give us of god: all benevolent, all powerful and all-knowing? That challenge has never been addressed by a Christian apologetic. And MtW is creating a verbal smoke screen to hide the fact that he can’t address it neither.
So when an atheist says to us, "God hasn't cured cancer, God hasn't fixed the world", they are labouring under the delusion that God wants to fix the world.
MtW is trunking the atheist counterargument. Which shouldn’t be a surprise since until now he hasn’t quoted any atheist (and wont do so further down). The atheist argument is that god allows suffering to happen and that hence at least one of the following attributes that christians claim about god doesn’t apply: omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent. That part of the atheist argument MtW omitted. And lying by omission is still lying.
The Seven Levels of Lying | Christianity Today
What Is the Sin of Omission? Its Definition and Consequences (christianity.com)
It shows christians that at least some aspects of their teachings are inconsistent with themselves and with reality.
In fact it says in the New Testament that this, "world and it's desires are passing away but he that does the will of God will abide forever." (see how assumptions change if we don't just go with atheists that don't open the bible?)
It might indeed be that “everything changes with assumptions” but that’s all you have, assumptions. MtW doesn’t offer any way to check your assumptions against reality.
So under Christianity at least, God isn't going to employ large-scale fixes, because Jesus didn't come and die on the cross to save the earth but the eternal soul, hence the person will abide forever but the world will, "pass away".
Under atheism too, god isn’t going to fix anything. For the good and simple reason that there is no god to fix the world. And what do we see: indeed no god fixing stuff. So MtW’s argument is without any value because a total different conclusion can be reached.
Is the atheist general prayer argument one of the most annoying? Yes, because of their inconsistent behaviour.
Or because it can’t be refuted. Because it shows a blatant inconsistency in the Christian narrative. God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent but doesn’t fix (doesn’t want or cannot fix) any suffering. He has a magnificent plan, but can cast that plan aside when prayers are answered. But if there is a big magnificent divine plan, what good is it to pray? God’s plan will unroll anyway. Either the cancer patient over whom is prayed will recover, as part of the big plan or he won’t. Or should god modify his Big Plan, jut because someone is prayed over? What worth is his Plan than?
Because if we get an answered prayer then according to atheists we are fallible fools that commit post hoc reasoning and confirmation bias and are riddled with all sorts of foibles.
It’s very simple: apply critical analysis on a real case, and we will see how objective, unbiased you guys are. The testing of the cake is in the eating. Well, show us a case.
But when it comes to prayer not getting answered we are supposed to believe humans are all of a sudden NOT these fallible, bias-ridden creatures but are all of a sudden making perfect judgements about what God would or should do if God exists.
Of course not. That is why there are things like statistical analysis, double blind testing, repeated testing, peer review and so on. To eliminate or minimize the bias.
See, that’s the difference between a sceptic and a believer. A sceptic know bias and fallibility exist and set up mechanisms to neutralize them. A believer goes in a tantrum and is offended when pointed out that these things apply to him too.
You can't win.
Apply the things mentioned above, and you guys will have made a step forward “winning”.
Conclusion; so we are basically uselessly inept fallible apes if our prayers are answered but if we say they're not we're perfect morally-pure all-knowing Einstiens that know how God should exactly behave.
...
If you instead want to be an informed atheist that is consistent, you have to look into what you preach. You preach humans are fallible and make all sorts of mistakes and can't be trusted, which means this would not place you in a good position to judge an all-knowing God. Nor would your subjective moral-commands be regarded logically as anything more than favourite flavour of icecream. (arbitrary and baseless, as evolved apes)
And there again, MtW misrepresents that what he is raging against. Because atheists - actually, scientists – do practice what they “preach”. Knowing that humans are fallible and prone to bias mechanisms have been devised to minimize these. Show me any believer who has done this when it comes to investigating his cherished believes.
Get over yourself. Inexperience doesn't count as experience, if a witness sees Jack the ripper it doesn't matter if most people didn't, so no, we don't have to conclude that the majority of people are correct in saying that the ripper doesn't look like what the witness reported them to have looked like.
Again, what use is it to argue with a fictional example, instead of a real case? Is it that the real cases will show you wrong. That there are no really answered prayers?
Disclaimer; I am not trying to provide a persuasive argument for prayer being real.
Good, MtW would have failed so far.
As far as I am concerned the correct people already know God answers prayer being of a noble conscience and honestly seeking the true answers according to God's will, in a position of integrity. I am not covering the philosophical, "problem of evil and suffering" as it is known.
Except for all the prayers of the Holocaust victims, or for all the prayers of the victims of the Rwanda Genocide, or for all the prayers of the victims of the Moroccan Earthquake and so on. Oh, they were just not of “noble conscience” or not part of god’s Big Plan, or god answered with “No”. Or any other post hoc (ir)rationalization.
I am also NOT invalidating atheist concerns when it comes to genuinely being puzzled as to why God would allow the suffering of innocent children for example. I am NOT saying that this is not a legitimate concern. ALL PEOPLE struggle with the negatives that exist, and the questions are honestly asked. That isn't the issue.
For not being the issue, MtW mentions it quite a lot of times.
The issue is this; does it make rational sense to argue limited humans could ever compete with understanding these matters on an omniscient level? Does it make logical sense to see human atheists as the standard?
At least a better standard than the god you worship. People do try to find cures for cancer. Try to rescue earthquake victims. Go to blood and plasma donation centres, distribute food and blankets. Welcomed Ukrainian refugees. It doesn’t take to be “omniscient”. Even with a limited knowledge humans know that these actions are needed. And that makes them better than the god you worship, for they - we - act.
Well if you are really rational would would say, "no, because an all-knowing God can have reasons only they can fully understand rather that what just seems like truisms to us, which may in fact only represent simplified concepts on our own inferior level."
A truly rational person would say that it doesn’t make any difference whether there is a god or not. We’re on our own.
After all we can't really compete in any other areas can we? For example do you know any atheists have have invented any contraflow lungs or a brain or metamorphosis? But these would all be attributable to God's level of understanding under the biblical worldview.
Irrelevant. Prove that your god did “invent” these things. And let him take credit – blame – for the lice, the Ebola virus and earthquakes too.
Conclusion; It doesn't matter how wide and far ignorance extends, it cannot be counted as experience and knowledge. Black swans simply exist.
My conclusion: MtW has written a completely fact free rant that has no relationship with reality at all. The total absence or real life examples, of real referenced quotes show this. On the contrary he can only make his points with fictional examples.
He complains that atheists see Christians as gullible and provides a prime example of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by driewerf, posted 09-20-2023 6:34 AM driewerf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by driewerf, posted 09-20-2023 2:06 PM Percy has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9531
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 52 of 55 (912634)
09-20-2023 12:06 PM


You both put a lot of effort into that reply, sadly I suspect that Mik the Troll won't be back.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AZPaul3, posted 09-21-2023 8:08 AM Tangle has not replied

  
driewerf
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 08-14-2010


Message 53 of 55 (912635)
09-20-2023 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
09-20-2023 10:46 AM


I wrote my reply in a Word file with different fonts. But copy - pasting it as a reply got the different fonts lost.
But thanks for the formatting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 09-20-2023 10:46 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 09-21-2023 2:58 PM driewerf has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 54 of 55 (912645)
09-21-2023 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tangle
09-20-2023 12:06 PM


You both put a lot of effort into that reply, sadly I suspect that Mik the Troll won't be back.
He'll be back. He always comes back. But he will come back to post more of the same bs. driewerf's post doesn't exist and will not get a response from him.
But ...
Take heart all ye Knights Of The True Path Of Science And Reality! The net sees and keeps all. The words of driewerf do not fall upon deaf galleries of peanuts but upon the collective human consciousness. ChatGPT is here. His words are now forever weighed into the matrix.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 09-20-2023 12:06 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22614
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 55 of 55 (912650)
09-21-2023 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by driewerf
09-20-2023 2:06 PM


driewerf in Message 53 writes:
I wrote my reply in a Word file with different fonts. But copy - pasting it as a reply got the different fonts lost.
I working on a new website where cut-n-paste will maintain all Word font styling.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by driewerf, posted 09-20-2023 2:06 PM driewerf has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024