Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You haven't presented any actual science to address. The closest you have come is claiming EM-like radiation, which is not actually EM radiation, which may be related to dark energy, which has never been observed and for which we know absolutely nothing about its properties.
That isn't science, that is a poor version of a twilight zone episode.
Quote:
from which I extrapolate my hypotheses and claims, which is probably wise given the rules against science in this forum. You just attack the claims which reflect a lack of understanding of the science they are extrapolated from.
Technically, I am not attacking your claims. I am attacking the premises of your argument. We cannot even get to your claims because your premises are flawed. This is freshman philosophy, and you are getting an F.
Quote:
The reductionist materialism that forms your understanding of our Reality is untenable given the increasingly incompatible findings on the fringes of science.
Fringes in this case means unproven.
Quote:
The intricate involvement of our conscious intellect (via observation)
By which you mean the acid trip you took a few years ago.
Quote:
in the quantum realm of our Reality
Go ahead. Please define what you mean by this phrase.
Quote:
offer clues to the potential validity of my extrapolations.
That is three levels of what if in 9 words. That isn't even close to evidence. It is much closer to a toddler talking about the tooth fairy.
You still haven’t explained how or why prayer seems to work in a disproportionate way even for non-believers. It may very well be “mind over matter” or the power of social bonding. But there is no EVIDENCE of such. Thrill wants to say it doesn’t work on”really” important things.” He sets himself up to determine what is “really important” without addressing why it works even in “small” things.
I thought my examples would suffice through simple logic. Generally, small things are things that would not show up on an x-ray or C-Scan. I'm think of that classic farce about a short fat bald ugly but successful hedge fund operator approaching his beautiful trophy wife for some loving:
Wife: Not tonight, dear. I have a headache.
Husband: I'll pray for you. Dear Lord. Please cure my wife's headache so I can get a little. I ask in Jesus' name, Amen.
Wife: No, it's still there, honey.
Husband: That's too bad, because afterward (taking out $100,000 diamond necklace) I was going to give you this. But I guess not.
Wife: Funny thing, honey. Your prayer worked. My headache suddenly disappeared.
Which proves the old adage,
"Prayer may not work but a $100,000 diamond necklace sure will".
I thought my examples would suffice through simple logic. Generally, small things are things that would not show up on an x-ray or C-Scan. I'm think of that classic farce about a short fat bald ugly but successful hedge fund operator approaching his beautiful trophy wife for some loving:
Wife: Not tonight, dear. I have a headache.
Husband: I'll pray for you. Dear Lord. Please cure my wife's headache so I can get a little. I ask in Jesus' name, Amen.
Wife: No, it's still there, honey.
Husband: That's too bad, because afterward (taking out $100,000 diamond necklace) I was going to give you this. But I guess not.
Wife: Funny thing, honey. Your prayer worked. My headache suddenly disappeared.
Which proves the old adage,
"Prayer may not work but a $100,000 diamond necklace sure will".
My point is that you have qualified your original post. If prayer works in “small” things but not big, it is still working and refutes your proposition that “Nothing fails like prayer.”
If it has to be all or nothing in the Bible, why do you propose it is not all or nothing with your premise?
It appears a bunch of non-believers have gone down the same rabbit hole as most theists so that you deny evidence in the “God direction” to the same extent theists deny science.
The more we try to be different, the more we uncover similar driving psychology.
For most believers, prayer isn’t a substitute for data-based solutions. It is a personal resource that complements other thoughtful action.
You haven't presented any actual science to address. The closest you have come is claiming EM-like radiation, which is not actually EM radiation, which may be related to dark energy, which has never been observed and for which we know absolutely nothing about its properties.
That isn't science, that is a poor version of a twilight zone episode.
Technically, I am not attacking your claims. I am attacking the premises of your argument. We cannot even get to your claims because your premises are flawed. This is freshman philosophy, and you are getting an F.
Fringes, in this case, means unproven.
By which you mean the acid trip you took a few years ago.
Go ahead. Please define what you mean by this phrase.
That is three levels of what if in 9 words. That isn't even close to evidence. It is much closer to a toddler talking about the tooth fairy.
Have you read My Synthesis? Your posts do not reveal any awareness of the content. It just makes them annoying. I do not and did not use any substances to produce my experiences.
My point is that you have qualified your original post. If prayer works in “small” things but not big, it is still working and refutes your proposition that “Nothing fails like prayer.”
If it has to be all or nothing in the Bible, why do you propose it is not all or nothing with your premise?
It appears a bunch of non-believers have gone down the same rabbit hole as most theists so that you deny evidence in the “God direction” to the same extent theists deny science.
The more we try to be different, the more we uncover similar driving psychology.
For most believers, prayer isn’t a substitute for data-based solutions. It is a personal resource that complements other thoughtful action.
I think you're splitting hairs here, Warden. Let me try to capsulize this:
Prayers mysteriously get answered when it's an illness that can be controlled psychosomatically such a headache or backache. There's no mystery here really. If my mind can influence an outcome then I can control the direction of this type of malady.
Cancer as one of hundreds of more extreme examples cannot have their outcomes controlled psychosomatically. A person can think positively all they want and pray all they want but in the end the cancer is going to do what the cancer is programmed to do, which not surprisingly is kill them.
So prayer isn't working in either extreme, it's just that in the milder ailments a person can believe their ailment went away after they prayed. It didn't really go away because of the prayer. It's psychomatic. The person's belief God would answer their prayer forced their psyche to influence in a positive manner the outcome of the ailment. Why? Because God doesn't, or at least shouldn't be discriminating against illnesses, curing the easy ones and completely ignoring the difficult ones. This points to a weak, inefficient and ultimately impotent God. But if it can be demonstrated that minor illnesses respond much more readily to prayer than serious ones than we have a database to demonstrate that it isn't God at all, it's the person's ability to influence their outcomes on the minor illnesses, but powerless to influence their outcomes on the serious ones.
For most believers, prayer isn’t a substitute for data-based solutions. It is a personal resource that complements other thoughtful action.
I disagree - especially when you place ‘most believers’ in the sentence. If people truly believed in ‘data-based solutions’, as you say (and prayer was secondary) - why the need for a prayer at all? I think most who pray truly do believe in its ‘power’ (or they wouldn’t pray), even though it’s nothing more than psychological comfort to the one praying.
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 04-20-2019 at 11:44 PM..
Reason: Left out a word
My point is that you have qualified your original post. If prayer works in “small” things but not big, it is still working and refutes your proposition that “Nothing fails like prayer.”
If it has to be all or nothing in the Bible, why do you propose it is not all or nothing with your premise?
It appears a bunch of non-believers have gone down the same rabbit hole as most theists so that you deny evidence in the “God direction” to the same extent theists deny science.
The more we try to be different, the more we uncover similar driving psychology.
For most believers, prayer isn’t a substitute for data-based solutions. It is a personal resource that complements other thoughtful action.
Then it is the person who 'works' rather than the prayer. There is a difference between denying science, which is verified data, and finding that 'evidence in the 'god -direction' turns out not to be valid evidence at all, merely Faith looking around for anything that can be made to look like evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
I disagree - especially when you place ‘most believers’ in the sentence. If people truly believed in ‘data-based solutions’, as you say (and prayer was secondary) - why the need for a prayer at all? I think most who pray truly do believe in its ‘power’ (or they wouldn’t pray), even though it’s nothing more than psychological comfort to the one praying.
Mmm. But I think that Dresden is aware of that. He means (I think) that the believers are doing that almost unconsciously. That is why they use the technology of medicine but praise God if it works.
Have you read My Synthesis? Your posts do not reveal any awareness of the content. It just makes them annoying. I do not and did not use any substances to produce my experiences.
If he did read your synthesis he wouldn't get anything more from it. I read it and it conveyed nothing of substance, either in itself or elucidation of your beliefs. Those I had to drag out of you bit by bit by repeated questioning. You are of course using misdirection here.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-21-2019 at 12:30 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
