mike the wiz writes:
I've heard this many times. Confirmation bias and post hoc reasoning.
it's because it's true. We all do it, in different aspects of our lives, now and then. I tend to delude myself that my football team is the best in the division. When they win, my belief grows. When they lose, it's down to a 'bad day', or 'financial worries'.
mike the wiz writes:
It's clever but not conclusive logically because there is no way to discern the difference.
If we're talking about a personal, identifiable deity (like the christian god) yes there is a way to discern the difference: a personal, identifiable deity will have some characteristics that define its behaviour; if a refusal to answer a prayer (or turning down a prayer) negates any of these characteristics, we can conclude that said deity does not exist. If, on the other hand, the answer to the prayer is in line with these characteristics and the probability of it happenning by other means is very low, we can add weight to the hypothesis that said deity exists.
So, if I pray for a million pounds and it doesn't happen, I can account for the miss by means of it being a greedy, materialistic request, so the refusal doesn't discredit the hypothesis of an all-loving, all-powerful god existing. If I pray for a terminally-ill baby to get cured and it doesn't happen, there 's no justification why an all-loving, all-powerful god would turn that down or ignore it. Therefore the prayer's refusal (or non-answer) is an indication that this god doesn't exist.
mike the wiz writes:
So the real problem is that how can one conclude as to whether God exists on the basis of misses? How can we conclusively say that either he doesn't exist or that he is simply saying "no"?
like I said above, if his saying "no" negates his nature, we can conclude that he doesn't exist.
** edited for spelling **
This message has been edited by Legend, 03-31-2005 07:42 AM
"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."