Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: The Loan Arranger on 8 Jul 2008 04:46 Ben Dolan wrote: > rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > >>>> According to scripture unless a prayer is asked in faith it will not >>>> be answered. >>>> Robert B. Winn >>> And according to empirical evidence, a prayer asked in faith will not be >>> answered either. >> What do you call empirical evidence? >> Robert B. Winn > > You hang out in physics newsgroups and you don't know what empirical > evidence is? I'm talking about peer reviewed, double-blind studies on > the efficacy--or more precisely, the complete lack of efficacy--of > prayer. I hate to mention it, but have you read `The Efficacy of "Distant Healing"' (Annals of Internal Medicine, 2000, 132/11 pp.903-910)? It was a study of peer-reviewed studies (mostly double-blind) into a range of healing methods, including "healing touch" and intercessionary prayer. Although it ruled that a number of the trials suffered from poor protocols or inherent bias, it did conclude that a majority showed statistically significant treatment effects, including trials considered well structured and conducted. The article had a good range of grant fundings, including the Wellcome Trust, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. One of the more interesting conclusions, by the way, is that although Christian prayer appeared somewhat efficacious, a number of other methods, some Pagan, some atheist (in the sense of having no worship element), worked equally well or better. TLA
From: The Loan Arranger on 8 Jul 2008 04:54 Steve O wrote: > All we said was that, contrary to your claim that the crucifixion was > the work of the devil, the crucifixion was essential for the redemption > of sin, therefore Judas did the world a favour. Until quite some time after the event, Judas was considered to have done Jesus a favour, by agreeing reluctantly to hand him over, according to Jesus's wishes. It was only when the evolving church needed an antihero that Judas's role was recast from tragic hero to traitor. TLA
From: Richard Meredith on 8 Jul 2008 05:20 In article <5392b914-4e96-4a67-a3ab-453aa9bcc890(a)27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, hhyapster(a)gmail.com () wrote: > You are banking on a philosophical context, or approach. > When we talk about evidence, we are then sure of things or event or > happening. Anything solid in this world would have the possibility of > a definition. > But a god...can you provide a definition and his existence? > You very well know that a heaven and hell thing are the invention of > human imagination and yet you believe we should not doubt them? I don't *know* any such thing, though I'm quite happy to admit it as possibility, even a strong likelihood. The reason I don't know whether they're a reality or a figment of the imagination is simply that there is no evidence pointing either way. > And the god is showering this world with diseases, right? Why is that? I'll leave that one for the theologians. I'm not arguing for the God hypothesis, just pointing out that it is one that has not been either proven or disproven. The similarity between atheists and theists is not what they believe, but their willingness to insist that they have a monopoly on the truth, despite their inability to provide any proof or even decent evidence either way.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 8 Jul 2008 05:41 BuddyThunder wrote: > rbwinn wrote: >> On Jul 7, 3:48�am, The Natural Philosopher <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >>> BuddyThunder wrote: >>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> On Jul 6, 12:58 am, BuddyThunder <nos...(a)paradise.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> rbwinn wrote: >>>>> - >>>>> Well, look spirit up in the dictionary. �If you do not believe in >>>>> spirit, then there is no way to explain it to you. >>>> I looked it up and found lots of vague notions of intermediaries >>>> between >>>> body and soul. That kind of nonsense. >>>> So there is no meaningful definition of "spirit" in reality? You made a >>>> positive claim about my "spirit", then choosing to define it in >>>> terms of >>>> itself. A kind of "spirit is spirit, what's wrong with you" argument. >>>> I'm none the wiser as to what you're actually referring to. >>> The mediaeval understanding of spirit,was essentially what we today >>> would call the mind, as distinct and somewhat independent of, the body. >>> The concept of the 'objective observer' grew out of this particular >>> worldview. Science owes religious philosophy that much, at least.- >>> Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >> Spirit could also be called intelligence. > > Why not simply use "intelligence" then? It's a much less nebulous word. > Intelligence is emergent from normal brain-activity (in many animals > including humans) and doesn't seem to be supernatural at all. THat is ony one way to skin the cat. And its probably more nearly correct to identify spirit with consciousness. Now whether consciousness is emergent from physical reality, or physical reality is emergent from consciousness, is a very moot point indeed. Classic materialism assumes the former, but neuroscience and indeed quantum effects suggest to some extent at least subjective physical reality is more or less constructed by consciousnes. Now the materialist will say thet subjective physical reality is 100% correlated with real physical reality, but the justifications of this are about as concrete as taking the bible literally. I.e. there is no real objective perception out there at all. Without modifying consciousness to see how that affects the perceptions of physical reality it is not possible to say whether our notion of physical reality exists outside of the way we happen to perceive it: eastern mystical traditions which concentrate on the methodologies to change consciousness, tend to claim that the apparent reality of the physical world, is certainly not as secure as our normal perceptual apparatus makes us feel. This was all part of the original Xtian/Judaic mysticism as well, but sadly the church no longer plays in this arena. Neither does Islam, outside of the Dervish movement. Which is all a sad waste, as, philosophically, there are, I think, great strides in understanding of both science and religion to be made by re-examining the basis on which we build our notions of what is real and what is not, and in what way. The Church however, seems more preocupied with secular morality, than philosophical investigation.
From: The Natural Philosopher on 8 Jul 2008 05:41
The Loan Arranger wrote: > Ben Dolan wrote: >> rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >> >>>>> According to scripture unless a prayer is asked in faith it will not >>>>> be answered. >>>>> Robert B. Winn >>>> And according to empirical evidence, a prayer asked in faith will >>>> not be >>>> answered either. >>> What do you call empirical evidence? >>> Robert B. Winn >> >> You hang out in physics newsgroups and you don't know what empirical >> evidence is? I'm talking about peer reviewed, double-blind studies on >> the efficacy--or more precisely, the complete lack of efficacy--of >> prayer. > > I hate to mention it, but have you read `The Efficacy of "Distant > Healing"' (Annals of Internal Medicine, 2000, 132/11 pp.903-910)? > > It was a study of peer-reviewed studies (mostly double-blind) into a > range of healing methods, including "healing touch" and intercessionary > prayer. Although it ruled that a number of the trials suffered from poor > protocols or inherent bias, it did conclude that a majority showed > statistically significant treatment effects, including trials considered > well structured and conducted. > > The article had a good range of grant fundings, including the Wellcome > Trust, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine > and the National Institutes of Health. > > One of the more interesting conclusions, by the way, is that although > Christian prayer appeared somewhat efficacious, a number of other > methods, some Pagan, some atheist (in the sense of having no worship > element), worked equally well or better. > Indeed. Prayer has effect. But to whom, is largely irrelevant ;-) > TLA |