Argument I don't understand
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2014, 01:10 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 09:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-10-2014 11:58 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  In short, scientific evidence can be replicated. Any number of people can do the same experiment and get the same result. If this doesn't happen, the scientific community doesn't accept the result.

Christian testimony is not repeatable. You're taking one person's word for it that they had a revelation, or their prayers were answered, or whatever. That's why it's considered anecdotal. You don't have to take anyone's word for it in science. You can repeat the experiment yourself.

Besides, as Chas pointed out, we don't have "more than one" eyewitness testimony of Jesus. Most biblical scholars agree that we have zero.

If I prayed to god 100 times and he answered me 100 times that is anecdotal, yes. That makes sense to me. Have you met any Christians who invited you to set up experiments for yourself, however?

Yes. Many times. Nothing has ever happened.

If, however, you are still fumbling towards a claim that prayer is "answered" by such means as would be distinguishable by outside observers, you're in luck, because I have just the folks for you to be in touch with...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-10-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 09:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm sorry that we are clearly miscommunicating here. Please let me try to rephrase what I'm asking:

Chas, you seem to use "peer review" and etc. a lot.

I don't believe I mentioned 'peer review'.

Quote:Some scientists, a very few of them, have falsified scientific evidence.

So?
You have just added 'red herring' to your list of errors.

Quote:All scientific research is to me--and I do tend to oversimplify--is people doing controlled experiments, using controls, and having others verify their results.

Yes, you over-simplified.
"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." -Wikipedia

Quote:I was taught when I was young to apply the hypothesis method to anything I took care to learn--I used it to test God before becoming a born again Christian.

Please describe what you mean by 'the hypothesis method'.

Quote:When you quote to me one scientific study that prayer doesn't work, and I say there are tens of thousands of churches worldwide that have regular accounting of prayer requests and their fulfillment in the presence of dozens to hundreds of witnesses, and then you say ALL the testimony is anecdotal and the scientific study is not, and then I say "sounds like a scientism bend to me" or perhaps "anti-religious bias" you responded that scientism is an extreme viewpoint that you don't hold.

See above. You have presented no "empirical and measurable evidence", just stories.
If the effects are not measurable and repeatable, on what do you base your claim? Hearsay, that's what.

Quote:I'm asking you again to tell us what you give credence to OTHER than scientific research. I tend to place credibility with trusted friends and family when they give me eyewitness accounts, but per the Bible, I do like to confirm such things on the evidence of at least one or two other accounts/pieces of evidence.

Empirical and measurable evidence. Accounts don't cut it - they're hearsay.
Stories can convince one to investigate, they are not convincing evidence.

Quote:I do accept anecdotal testimony at times (like my wife says "she really loves me"). I don't say, "where's the real evidence for that?" because in that instance, I accept her anecdotal testimony.

You already have sufficient cause to believe her in her past and present behavior. If you didn't, you would not believe her testimony.
But she is not making an objective claim, she is testifying to her feelings.

Quote:If you wouldn't mind, please tell me what you accept other than scientific research, since you say you don't hold to the extreme views of scientism.

For claims about the physical universe, empirical and measurable evidence is required.

Quote:I don't want to be passive-aggressive or sound left-handed, so I'll tell you my agenda. If you would please tell me what you accept as evidence, I would try to provide same for God. Thanks.

Please provide something other than your feelings or revelations.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
22-10-2014, 01:24 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 09:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I do accept anecdotal testimony at times (like my wife says "she really loves me"). I don't say, "where's the real evidence for that?" because in that instance, I accept her anecdotal testimony.

Oh, look! Equivocation!

No, champ, that isn't anecdotal evidence, because it isn't considered in isolation. The fact that, among other things, she (presumably) chooses to continue to be married to you would strike an honest person as rather significant corroborating evidence.

Would you take the same claim at face value from a stranger on the street?

Would you take the same claim at face value from a stranger on the street if there were anything significant at stake?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 01:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 09:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm sorry that we are clearly miscommunicating here. Please let me try to rephrase what I'm asking:

Chas, you seem to use "peer review" and etc. a lot.

I don't believe I mentioned 'peer review'.

Quote:Some scientists, a very few of them, have falsified scientific evidence.

So?
You have just added 'red herring' to your list of errors.

Quote:All scientific research is to me--and I do tend to oversimplify--is people doing controlled experiments, using controls, and having others verify their results.

Yes, you over-simplified.
"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." -Wikipedia

Quote:I was taught when I was young to apply the hypothesis method to anything I took care to learn--I used it to test God before becoming a born again Christian.

Please describe what you mean by 'the hypothesis method'.

Quote:When you quote to me one scientific study that prayer doesn't work, and I say there are tens of thousands of churches worldwide that have regular accounting of prayer requests and their fulfillment in the presence of dozens to hundreds of witnesses, and then you say ALL the testimony is anecdotal and the scientific study is not, and then I say "sounds like a scientism bend to me" or perhaps "anti-religious bias" you responded that scientism is an extreme viewpoint that you don't hold.

See above. You have presented no "empirical and measurable evidence", just stories.
If the effects are not measurable and repeatable, on what do you base your claim? Hearsay, that's what.

Quote:I'm asking you again to tell us what you give credence to OTHER than scientific research. I tend to place credibility with trusted friends and family when they give me eyewitness accounts, but per the Bible, I do like to confirm such things on the evidence of at least one or two other accounts/pieces of evidence.

Empirical and measurable evidence. Accounts don't cut it - they're hearsay.
Stories can convince one to investigate, they are not convincing evidence.

Quote:I do accept anecdotal testimony at times (like my wife says "she really loves me"). I don't say, "where's the real evidence for that?" because in that instance, I accept her anecdotal testimony.

You already have sufficient cause to believe her in her past and present behavior. If you didn't, you would not believe her testimony.
But she is not making an objective claim, she is testifying to her feelings.

Quote:If you wouldn't mind, please tell me what you accept other than scientific research, since you say you don't hold to the extreme views of scientism.

For claims about the physical universe, empirical and measurable evidence is required.

Quote:I don't want to be passive-aggressive or sound left-handed, so I'll tell you my agenda. If you would please tell me what you accept as evidence, I would try to provide same for God. Thanks.

Please provide something other than your feelings or revelations.

You wrote, "For claims about the physical universe, empirical and measurable evidence is required."

What is there that you believe exists, which is not within the physical universe, please?

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 09:43 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I do accept anecdotal testimony at times (like my wife says "she really loves me"). I don't say, "where's the real evidence for that?" because in that instance, I accept her anecdotal testimony.

Oh, look! Equivocation!

No, champ, that isn't anecdotal evidence, because it isn't considered in isolation. The fact that, among other things, she (presumably) chooses to continue to be married to you would strike an honest person as rather significant corroborating evidence.

Would you take the same claim at face value from a stranger on the street?

Would you take the same claim at face value from a stranger on the street if there were anything significant at stake?

Excellent. So we agree that evidence is ENHANCED by those whom we TRUST. Or if you like, corroborating evidence. Since you accept repeated interaction with the same person as corroborating evidence, let me testify, I know God and I trust Him.

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 02:23 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 01:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 09:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If I prayed to god 100 times and he answered me 100 times that is anecdotal, yes. That makes sense to me. Have you met any Christians who invited you to set up experiments for yourself, however?

Yes. Many times. Nothing has ever happened.

If, however, you are still fumbling towards a claim that prayer is "answered" by such means as would be distinguishable by outside observers, you're in luck, because I have just the folks for you to be in touch with...

On the challenge page it is stated that "we agree with most religious persons that God cannot be tested" aka cop out. There are certain things you can do to test God.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 01:02 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 09:44 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If I prayed to god 100 times and he answered me 100 times that is anecdotal, yes. That makes sense to me. Have you met any Christians who invited you to set up experiments for yourself, however?

If you're claiming that God answers 100% of your prayers, I'm calling bullshit, unless you have an extremely broad definition of "answer" ("Sometimes the answer is no", lol). Untold millions of prayers have not been answered, and this is by far the more common experience. I have been a Christian myself, and known many many other Christians. Never once has any of them claimed that every one of their prayers was answered. And yes, I have done the "experiments" myself, with overwhelmingly negative results.

The "efficacy of prayer" is bullshit, from a logical standpoint as well as an experimental one. Why would an omniscient and omnipotent god change his mind just because I asked him to? He already knows everything that will happen to me, as well as what is best for me (and for anyone else that I might pray for). It would make no sense at all for him to alter that plan at my request. And what if I pray for a home run, and the pitcher is simultaneously praying for a strikeout? It is impossible for God to "answer" both prayers. At least one of us is guaranteed to be disappointed.

I'd love to ask you more about how you prayed and results but since you self-equivocate with an unreasoned "why would he change his mind" I'd expect resistance...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 02:32 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 02:23 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 01:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes. Many times. Nothing has ever happened.

If, however, you are still fumbling towards a claim that prayer is "answered" by such means as would be distinguishable by outside observers, you're in luck, because I have just the folks for you to be in touch with...

On the challenge page it is stated that "we agree with most religious persons that God cannot be tested" aka cop out. There are certain things you can do to test God.

"2.5 Why can’t I submit a religious or spiritual claim?

While we do not reject religious or spiritual claims on principle, many religious claims are based on faith or on interpretation of anecdotal evidence, making them inherently untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – such as surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning, and say, “This was the hand of God.” However, the point of the Challenge isn’t to present testimony. It is to present something testable. Besides this, most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God, and we agree."

He's being flippant, you missed it since you took it out of context and misquoted him. Disingenuous much?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
22-10-2014, 02:37 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 02:32 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 02:23 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  On the challenge page it is stated that "we agree with most religious persons that God cannot be tested" aka cop out. There are certain things you can do to test God.

"2.5 Why can’t I submit a religious or spiritual claim?

While we do not reject religious or spiritual claims on principle, many religious claims are based on faith or on interpretation of anecdotal evidence, making them inherently untestable. For example, you can look at a series of events – such as surviving an automobile crash, surviving a plane crash, surviving a near-drowning, and say, “This was the hand of God.” However, the point of the Challenge isn’t to present testimony. It is to present something testable. Besides this, most religious people believe it’s impossible to test God, and we agree."

He's being flippant, you missed it since you took it out of context and misquoted him. Disingenuous much?

Indeed. "[W]e do not reject religious or spiritual claims on principle" being the literal opposite of what flagrantly dishonest ol' Q here trying to suggest.

Intercessory prayer is a testable claim. It has always failed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-10-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(22-10-2014 02:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 01:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't believe I mentioned 'peer review'.


So?
You have just added 'red herring' to your list of errors.


Yes, you over-simplified.
"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." -Wikipedia


Please describe what you mean by 'the hypothesis method'.


See above. You have presented no "empirical and measurable evidence", just stories.
If the effects are not measurable and repeatable, on what do you base your claim? Hearsay, that's what.


Empirical and measurable evidence. Accounts don't cut it - they're hearsay.
Stories can convince one to investigate, they are not convincing evidence.


You already have sufficient cause to believe her in her past and present behavior. If you didn't, you would not believe her testimony.
But she is not making an objective claim, she is testifying to her feelings.


For claims about the physical universe, empirical and measurable evidence is required.


Please provide something other than your feelings or revelations.

You wrote, "For claims about the physical universe, empirical and measurable evidence is required."

What is there that you believe exists, which is not within the physical universe, please?

Thanks.

There is no evidence of anything else, but that is not proof that there isn't anything else.

But we don't know everything about the universe, we continue to explore.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: