I understood OP to be asking this: If praying for outcome x sometimes causes x to happen, wouldn't there be statistical evidence of the effectiveness of prayer?

To this question, the answer is not "No," but "Maybe." Evidently you interpreted OP's question differently, though.

Maybe I missed it, but looking back over your posts in the thread I don't see you saying this.

Good.

The obvious purpose that if God was messing with your collider data then it is not trustworthy data.

I'll note that capability is completely irrelevant to this discussion: we are both agreed that god is capable of deceiving us. As for intent, I think the question is primarily about god's intervention in the universe.
This is not an accurate description of my position. I have explicitly acknowledged from my first post (your story here about me shifting my argument to"cover my mistake" is both completely false and offensive) that God could have both the capability and intent to deceive us, in which case the evidence for the efficacy of prayer would be worthless. Thus, we are both in agreement about the possibility of God doing this.

Let me put my argument in probabilistic terms. We are both agreed that the probability that god/evil demon/scientist is deceiving us is non-zero. We are also agreed that if we are being deceived then the probability that prayer is efficacious is not effected by the results of empirical studies of the efficacy of prayer.

My argument is this: If we are being deceived, the probability of scientific hypothesis x is also not effected by the results of empirical studies concerning x. However, since we do consider empirical studies concerning x for some values of x conclusive, we must either be wrong about them being conclusive, or we regard the probability that we are being deceived as very low. However, if we regard the probability that we are being deceived as very low, then it would also be low when looking at whether empirical studies of the efficacy of prayer are conclusive. Thus, empirical studies of prayer can be conclusive about the efficacy of prayer (although not certain).

Now, maybe you'll object that the probability that we are being deceived and the probability that prayer is efficacious are not independent. I suppose you could say that if prayer is efficacious then it is more likely that some supernatural being with the ability to deceive us exists and so it is more likely that we are being deceived. But since there have been many theistic scientists who still discount the probability that they are being deceived concerning scientific hypothesis x, I don't think this is strong enough to make a difference.

The objection you have raised is that while the probability that we are deceived about the empirical evidence in physics and other scientific subjects is presumably low and so can be discounted, this is not the case with the empirical evidence for prayer or for the existence of god. However, I don't see why this is the case. The only reason you've given for this claim is that the empirical evidence doesn't in fact show that god exists and so if god does exist then god must be deceiving us. But that doesn't increase the prior probability that god will deceive us about his existence, it only makes the antecedent probability that god actually does exist lower.

Someone could make an argument that god would have more reason to deceive us about his existence than about say, the mass of the Higgs boson. And if you could show that to a sufficient degree, then I think my claim about the conclusiveness of empirical studies of prayer would be incorrect. The empirical studies would still raise or lower the probability that prayer was efficacious, but perhaps not conclusively so. But no one here has said anything about what these reasons would be.

I suppose you think that God's reasons for deceiving us about prayer is different than about the Higgs boson. Okay. What reason is that and why does it make it more likely that God is deceiving me about prayer?

I make no creator at all a slight favorite over some sort of deism.

Based on external observables this is a very defensible position.

I do believe that my prayers have been answered but in many cases we don't really understand what to pray for or how and we can't always know when or how a prayer has been answered. If I pray for a specific outcome I always pray for God's will to be done because I might not benefit from the outcome I want or He might have a different idea.

You can't add up 10011101110000101011 to get a valid statistical analysis if we don't actually have the capability to correctly identify a 1 or a 0. Nor can we have a valid control group to validate our results.

Its a matter of faith and its a spiritual thing, which is not emotion or feeling comforted but rather the recognition of a presence of a spiritual power in your life that can't be quantified by the laws of science because its not constrained to operate within the physical world.

Its perfectly okay for the unbeliever to consider faith a delusion because it meets the logical and rational definition of delusion. But, no. God is real. You just have to seek and you will find Him.

Can you give examples?

Actually it's not but whatever, I've seeked and seeked but I haven't found him (or Allah, or Ganesh, or Vishnu, or any of the gods), what's the secret?

actually it is but whatever

In my personal experience the answer is sincerity and a willingness to accept any truth. Also, paradoxically, faith help.

There is a misconception that Christians simply believe because they were raised that way or they simply have blind faith. In my personal experience the Lord has revealed Himself to me.

Obviously many people won't believe that, and I myself cannot say that I know with all certainty that my faith is correct, but we can't know anything with all certainty.

There could be many explanations for what I think the "Lord revealing Himself to me" actually is. For one, it could be that your brain deceives you when you reach a certain point of desperation, and as a survival mechanism, gives you a false hope in a God that doesn't actually exist.
It could be that I'm in a coma right now, and i'm imagining this whole set of events where there is a God who is real to me. The explanations are infinite.

Regardless of the source, I can't deny that there is something out there that communicates with me and at least pretends to love me and point me in certain directions. And as opposed to ignore it, I live my life a certain way, otherwise I would be a hypocrite and I would be lying to myself.

What's confusing to me is that atheists believe that all people, although there are some, just take up a faith and walk with it without any proof along the way.
And all I'm saying is that I don't know for certain that my faith is correct, but given my experiences, I have little choice but to continue in it.

I've always liked the "evil genius", a being who directs all his power into deceiving me of everything I see and feel and know. I can't prove that that isn't happening to me right now, but it would be foolish for me to abandon my life in the chance that is true. It's the same with God revealing Himself to me. even though it may not be true, I would be foolish to ignore Him.

So yeah, I could be completely mad, but if you are sincere and pray to the Lord with an open heart I believe that anyone can hear from the Lord. What you do from there is completely up to you.

Any truth? Or just truths that are compatible with Christian doctrine?

There's a demonstrable correlation between which religious belief people hold and where people were raised, it's not a misconception that it's a very significant factor, but of course it's not the only reason.

I'm curious about how you reconcile not knowing anything with certainty but at the same time how you 'accept any truth'?

Of course you have a choice. You could decide that Islam is correct and become Muslim, or Bhuddist, of Hindu, or you could decide that your personal experiences may not be reliable and you should reserve judgment until you have some other more convincing proof for what you would believe.

I said any truth because if you go in with your mind made up, then you may ignore answers you are not willing to believe.

Sure, there is no denying that. If you were raised in religion A you are more likely to follow religion A instead of religion B, even though religion A may not actually represent the true God. That is what I mean by seeking with an open mind. You embrace the answer regardless of how difficult it is to accept, and if it means rejecting A and being seen as a traitor and an outcast, then so be it.

But just because people stay where they were raised so to speak, doesn't prove or disprove anything except that people are generally sheepish. It doesn't mean that A and B are wrong simply because people accept A and B respectively. It's just easier.

My point was that it's difficult to know anything. We live our lives with a certain amount of faith that what we perceive to be real is actually real.

I certainly can't know that when I get on my knees and pray to God, that I exist as I presume I do, that I have a body and knees to begin with, and that God actually exists. These things I take on faith like everyone does. But it's not blind faith. I have sensations and perceptions and I can touch my knees, so even if they're not actually real, I accept it as real. In the same way I believe in God. I have personal experiences that I choose to accept, even though they may not be actually real. I can't know anything for certain, but given the evidence, I believe.

When I first sought God, I was desperate and genuine. I didn't care where the answer came from. When the answer came, what choice did I have? I could accept it or reject it. Both choices were difficult, but I chose to accept it.

My experiences not being reliable is what I have been saying about life in general. Nothing is reliable or without a doubt, even your bodily existence. You believe it based on the evidence. I cannot dismiss what God has done in my life, I would be lying to myself. And I don't say that with pride thinking that I'm wiser or more spiritual, but rather I'm saying that the Lord has revealed Himself to me. Yes, I could be wrong. Yes, there could be another answer, but at this point, doubting God would be as difficult as doubting my own existence.

That is what I'm trying to communicate to people who don't believe in God. Not everyone just blindly believes because dad was a pastor and because they're too dull to think outside the box. Sure there are those, but I would truly have to go out of my way to dismiss the Lord, just like I would have to go out of my way to believe that I'm in a matrix. That's not to say I'm right, but that is the evidence in front of me.

I realise you may not want to, and thats fine, but I would be interested to hear some of the evidence you have that god, and specifically the god of the bible, exists.

I think Jib had a thread here a while back where he attempted to show that there are lots of arguments around for God's existence, and on the other hand, there are no, or very little arguments that can be put forth for God not existing.

I've been thinking about this statement lately, and I think it is the reason Craig can do so well in most of his debates. I also think it is accurate. If you choose to believe, you will find plenty of ammunition.

As for the claim that "God does not exist," the best that I can see is the POE argument, which, if anything, would just demonstrate that a "good" God doesn't exist.

I suppose the standard position would be that we should assume a "no god" position as the default until we are moved to belief by the brute force of the evidence. I am skeptical about the relevancy of applying the scientific model to philosophical/theological questions to begin with, but let us assume that we did. Some philosophical arguments, like the kalam, actually draw support from scientific observations which demonstrate that the world is inexplicably strange or insoluble. Again, without a coherent cosmological history, a "no God exists" claim seems unnecessarily premature.

My question is this: are there atheists here who really believe that there are NO arguments for God existing that are worthy of scrutiny?

I see this tone taken here that seems to imply that "zero justification exists" for God existing.

I find this startling, honestly.

Edit: Honestly, when I see such a tone taken, my immediate response is to assume the poster is being disingenuous.

Yes, he attempted to do that, but from my reading of the thread, he didnt actually show anything of the sort.




Its not so much that there is evidence that "God does not exist" ( what would evidence of something not existing look like?)
Its more that there is no compelling evidence ( compelling to me, anyway) that he does exist, this includes both personal experience, and arguments put forward by others.

Even if we somehow found out , or I was somehow shown, that a god does exist, you would still have to show me how to get from there, to "the god of the bible exists".


I know you have been asked before, but I havent really seen anything compelling from you on evidence for god, so perhaps you might give some in this thread? I know you are of the "the heavens themselves announce the presence of the lord" type of evidence, but I dont really find that compelling.

There is nothing I can tell you that you haven't heard before, and I usually find that when someone asks for my reasoning, it's not to objectively listen to me, but to try to refute or dismiss what I'm about to say.

I will share my experiences nonetheless, and like I said earlier, there are plenty of other explanations to what I perceive, other than God, I do not debate that, but given my perspective, it's easier for me to be a Christian than anything else.

It is difficult to explain what it means for God to reveal himself to you because it's like explaining and proving a headache. When you have a headache no one can tell you that you're not in pain, and it's difficult to articulate the sensation. When the Lord speaks to you, you "hear" Him and understand Him, just like you understand you have a shooting pain behind your eyes. He communicates with you in that information is relayed to you in a way other than verbal, but just as convincing and enlightening. It's through this that I personally began to believe in Jesus and of the authenticity of the bible . Not immediately of the latter, as I had a lot of doubts, but it came in time. He also shows you his presence, by which I mean you can sense He is there, again, like a headache.

Since I cannot prove to you what I'm saying is true, I do find this somewhat fruitless. I could be lying, I could suffer from a mental disorder, or any other number of explanations.

What I really wanted to put out there was that in my perspective, I cried out to God and he answered me. Then I began to believe in Him, and it grew into something very profound. These are my experiences which led me to believe what I believe and to drastically change my life. Obviously I haven't explained everything in full but that's the gist of it.

With that said, I do not understand why so many people get angry at this. If I'm wrong then so be it, but I'm not malicious, I'm not lording it over anyone, I'm don't claim I'm special. Being angry at me is like being angry at someone who claims to have a chronic pain which doctors can't explain. Maybe that's overly simplistic, but this is what I have experienced, and I believe accordingly.
The only other reason for being angry at me would be if I'm lying in order to justify my beliefs, but even then, wouldn't that make you feel sorry for me rather than be hateful? And if I'm just plain out of my head, wouldn't that also make you feel pity and not anger?

I can answer more in depth if you have any specific questions, but I think you can understand my perspective from what I've described.

I am aware of this motivation in me, and it may have been part of the reason for asking, but not all, and I was determined even before you answered to try not to refute or dismiss your answers.

I did find your answers rather vague though, perhaps you can go into more detail about



How does it work? A voice in your head? A thought appearing as a reply to a question you had? There must be some information on what makes it different from "everyday" stuff?





I dont think I am particularly angry at you.

It's like I said, it's difficult to explain because of the limitations of language, just like it's difficult to explain pain in detail.

it's not exactly like a voice in your head. I think a good explanation would be the understanding you get when I answer a question that you've just asked me, without actually hearing an audible voice. So if you ask me what I did today, and I answer, "stayed at home sick", you would know I stayed at home. Now simply delete the part where you audibly heard my answer, but keep the information you just received. like an idea popping into your head with more intensity and purpose than an aimless thought, often combined with the presence of God.

Explaining the presence of God is equally difficult. it's warm, loving, and light, depending on the intensity.

the below is a good place to appreciate a presentation of the Divine Form, that of Arjuna , as related by Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita. Chapter 11 "Vision of the Cosmic form" is the reference to read; even better the entire Bhagavad Gita is the best reading.

It is what one man was able to attain and he brought it to you. Of course, as with any of this type of knowing the interrogator can deny and in essence will not give any minimal credence unless he can put his hands in the wounds of His side.

in any case; Bhagavad Gita ;

http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/gita.htm

For those interested, the translation of the Bhagavad Gita by Juan Mascaro appears much more poetic to me and for what it's worth.

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=rVEIAQAAIAAJ

I find it interesting how you almost always make of yourself so obvious a target. So, in the very same post you say that you think it is true that there are no, or very little arguments that can be put forth for God not existing, but yet also say that when atheists make a parallel claim about God existing that your immediate response is to assume that they are being disingenuous. Why shouldn't we make the same assumption about you?

So now I'm curious, you're a Christian right? What is the predominant religion where you were raised?

I don't think this is what happens in the majority of cases and even when it does, it's a fairly recent development. It wasn't that long ago (historically speaking) that I wouldn't have dared to make public my atheism. Even now in many places in the US, a supposedly advanced nation, it's socially uncomfortable to admit to that.

There are many more reasons than that why people follow a religion. They permeate our societies, our neighbourhoods, our media, our art and literature, mention and sight of them is everywhere, religious words and phrases pepper our vocabulary, there is a huge amount of social peer pressure to conform (my wife just answered the door to a neighbour who was raising funds for our local church, she made up an excuse not to be involved rather than risk offending the neighbour).

I wasn't raised in any religion. My parents really had no religious affiliations, they never went to church, and they never spoke to me about theism or atheism whatsoever. Looking back, I realize my mom was a non-practicing catholic at the time, and my dad was a staunch atheist. I can honestly say that my parents did not influence my decision to become a practicing Christian, at least in a positive way. My dad specifically was disappointed in my decision, at least originally.

Just because something is inconvenient doesn't mean that it's wrong. If you're not going to seek with an open mind, then you're lying to yourself, no matter how difficult it is. And I do realize that in some places, like the bible belt, it is frowned upon to be an atheist, but you must know there is another side to that coin, especially in the academic world. To say you're a theist means that you're not intelligent. You should know that from the thread about the relationship between intelligence and religion.

All pressure aside, both positive and negative. There is no point in seeking answers if you're not willing to accept them. If we assume the Christian faith is correct, just for arguments sake, obviously people who live in a "Christian" family, even those who lack a strong foundation and conviction, will have an easier time than someone who lives in a muslim family. But the argument that one decides to follow Christianity only because it is easier is not true in every case, is not true in my case, and most importantly, shouldn't be true for anyone who is actually seeking the truth with an open mind, and is willing to abandon any sets of beliefs regardless of the outcome.

I can sympathize with that, but again, there is pressure on every side, and I think we as egocentric beings tend to exaggerate the pressures that affects us. I won't say that you face no pressure as an atheist, but you must see that Christians are ridiculed fairy regularly as well. A large part of that is due to a gross misrepresentation of so called "Christians", but there is pressure nonetheless.

And, yes, I agree that there are many more reasons why people follow a religion, but that doesn't make those reasons right. If you follow a religion for convenience, you're not honest with yourself.

When I personally began to seek God, I was willing to accept any answer not because I was more spiritual or more intelligent, but because I was desperate. I really had no foresight of what would actually happen if I did receive and embrace a certain faith. As it turns out for me specifically, it was extremely difficult and embarrassing. I don't know if another faith would have been any easier, or perhaps even more difficult (probably the latter), but that wasn't my perspective when I was searching for God, and I don't think it should be anyones perspective that is genuinely seeking the truth.

That's not really answering what I asked, which was 'What is the predominant religion where you were raised?'.

I don't think that this is true, although it's true that their is an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence, but that's probably as a result of less intelligent people being less likely to question what they're told or to be exposed to alternate views, it's not saying that to be theist requires a lack of intelligence.

Sure but what do you require before you'll 'accept' something as an answer? I require something more than any of the religions can offer because all they really have (in the supernatural context) requires faith before it can be believed. I don't have 'faith' in anything and can't accept that as a way of acquiring knowledge. I think the knowledge that results from a 'faith' approach is as likely to be wishful thinking as it is to be true.

Define raised. Like I said, my parents never spoke to me about religion, neither pro nor con, so I would say I wasn't raised in a religion. It seems like you want me to say "Christian" so you can chalk up everything I said earlier to me having a predisposition. I can admit to having gone to a catholic high school, but only because the alternative was academically inferior. And even if this did give me a predisposition to chose Christianity, like I have said before, I did not choose intellectually. The difficulty here is that my "argument" relies on my faith being right: That the Christian God be real, that He revealed Himself to me, and that I accepted. If you take the perspective that there is no divine being, then its just me walking into the closest religious avenue, because "He" doesn't exist, so "He" could never have spoken to me. It's the same reason I never try to convince someone that I'm right, because it's impossible. What I'm saying is that, whether I'm right or wrong, is that I "chose" Christianity because of the experiences I've had. You cannot refute my experiences, but you can refute where they came from. If I say the Lord spoke to me, it's the same as saying I have a stomach ache. It's true in my perspective. Whether or not it was actually the Lord is absolutely fair game to scrutinize, but not the fact that the experience occurred.
Also, for what it's worth, I don't follow catholicism, as I don't agree with many of their beliefs.


I only meant that this is a popular belief, whether right or wrong, that many people, especially in the academic world, have about theists. I wasn't commenting on the truth of the statement either way.

I understand that sentiment, faith and fact are not exactly allies. But it seems like you're taking the stance that "the religions" are wrong to begin with because of the nature of how they reach their beliefs. It's like saying there is nothing inside a locked room which you can't see inside, because people just assume there is something in there. There may or may not be something inside the room regardless of why people believe what's inside. To discount the possibility of something being inside because of how other people reach their conclusions seems disingenuous. The best approach would be to investigate for yourself with the notion that either possibility could be true.

In my case, I do not have blind faith. I may have had blind faith when I first prayed, just be definition, but now my faith is not blind, I've had personal experiences which I cannot discount. I absolutely empathize with just blindly believing and changing your lifestyle based on nothing, but I would encourage you to have faith at first and do something foolish, like praying to someone who may not be there, and see if you get any answers.

What I was asking was 'would you class the country you grew up in as Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu or whatever. What wass the predomiant religion?

I'm assuming from you saying that you went to Catholic school that you grew up in a Christian country. And now you're christian, right?

I'm pretty sure this isn't the case either. Academics are the people least likely to make such a basic error especially as they're more likely to be in regular contact with intelligent theists in their day to day work.


I'm not saying that they're wrong, I'm saying that I couldn't commit myself to what any of them teach regarding the supernatural elements of their tenets, I can't make that 'leap of faith' that's required. For me, it's simply a suspension of critical thinking.


It's like saying that until we open the door, or unless I have a good reason to believe one way or the other (like hearing noises or some other kind of empirical evidence that there is something in the room) that I don't know whether or not something is in the room. What I would never do is believe something for no other reason that that I want to for some reason.


Is it a coincidence that you have come to follow the same religion that is the predominant one in the culture that you've had the most exposure to or do you have some reason to know that out of all the choices available, that Christians are right?

How is it possible that you are still pressing the same lame arguments and points?

Christianity is the predominant religion in the world.

Yeah, I grew up in a Christian country and have had more exposure to Christianity, and now I'm a Christian.

Maybe it isn't the case, but I've seen it a lot. Especially people who can't rectify the theory of evolution with the existence of a deity.

Tenets. Good word. It seems like you're saying that they may be right or wrong, but you'll never know because you'll never give those beliefs a chance.

I agree, believing for convenience is unacceptable. But it seems, and I could be wrong, that you're not even willing to go up to the door, because of all the people who just have faith there is something on the other side.

I would say it's a coincidence because the Lord really does exist. Obviously that's not going to satisfy your answer. I can appreciate what you're saying, there are more muslims in the muslim world, there are more hindus and buddhists in their respective worlds. That doesn't mean that all of them are wrong though, it just means that people are generally sheepish. I can't convince you that I'm not just another follower of my respective religion, I can only encourage you to being open to any answer from any mainstream religion, or otherwise, and see if you don't experience the same things. just because people follow their respective religions doesn't necessarily cancel them all out as false. It may make it more likely that those religions are false, but it's not necessarily true.