Justification for Theistic Beliefs

Great Debates
41

Tough crowd. Now I have to prove a negative? I have to somehow show y’all that I would be a “degenerate street-bum druggie” without prayer? There is no possible way for me to do this, and y’all know it.

I wasn’t really conducting an experiment at the time, blowero.

To test the “kitchen table” hypothesis, I tried praying to a kitchen table yesterday morning. I prayed for not much, just a bit more energy to get through today. Not only did I sleep in until 11:00 this morning, I’m tired already at nine. Obviously, this doesn’t work. Tonight, I will pray to God the exact same prayer. I will not be biased at all. We shall see what becomes of it.

It would be scientifically impossible to test prayer on anyone but yourself, as there are too many variables that you have no control over. For instance, is the person sincere? There is no way to varify another’s mindset. Thus, such an experiment can only be done on one’s-self. To attempt otherwise would be a bit foolish.

Doc Nickel, I think what JThunder’s trying to say (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that these disciplines cannot be testedv very scientifically. For instance, could I test the hypothesis scientifically that the reason Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo was because he didn’t have enough artillery support? Of course not. Similarly, I couldn’t test whether or not Nietzsche’s Will to Power actually exsists. I couldn’t test whether or not the Bush tax cut is good or bad for the economy in the long run.

Religion falls withing that same realm. I cannot test whether or not there is a God because no possible test can be used to determine it. The test or methodology simply doesn’t exist.

Just because science hasn’t proved something doesn’t mean it’s not true.

42

-"[Not] very scientifically" implies that some science could be applied, but I get your point.

No, you most likely couldn’t “test” the Napoleon Hypothesis, but you can indeed analyze it, compute variables, and look at given evidence to postulate that, had the artillery been Here instead of over There, perhaps the gunners would have been more effective towards the outcome. Ad nauseum.

The Bush Tax Cut is self-testing; we’ll know in a few years whether or not it helped or hindered. In the meantime, just as with the Napoleon example, one can weigh variables, compare them to previous market trends, and make educated guesses.

As far as Nietszche is concerned, psychiatry and psychoanalysis are accepted and practiced sciences- what Nietszche wrote was, for all it’s power, little more than self-introspection. How do you, the reader, interpret the world?

And in any case, these are all examples of things that actually exist- We know Nietszche lived, we could find his body somewhere, we have photographs. We watched Bush sign the Tax Cut on national TV, we know Napoleon lived and what he accomplished.

To tell me that you “just know” something exists, but that something cannot be seen, heard, detected or interacted with, it has no effect on people, places or things, does not interfere with or make itself known to us? How do you know it exists? That, as I described, is a fair definition of something that doesn’t exist.

Two thousand years ago, people were told not to climb tall mountains, because God lived in the sky and Heaven was closed to the still-living. We climbed, and found nothing.

Some wondered if the first Astronauts would find God, above the troposphere, for God lives in the sky, apparently above the tallest mountains. Those astronauts found only a vacuum.

More astronauts orbited 400,000 kilometers from the Earth, and found nothing supernatural. The Chandra X-ray telecope and the Hubble can see into the Universe for a billion light years, and have found no God, no Heaven.

Save for a book that we, mere humans wrote, how do you know that God exists or ever existed?

43

Well, an easy way would to determine whether or not prayer had a statistically significant effect would be compare atheists and theists in similar situations.
And, I’m sorry if I sounded accusatory, JThunder. The claim of the OP was just so unprovable that I assumend you had an ulterior motive by trying to get a list of all arguments supporting theism.
You know, you could actually volunteer a bit of evidence for a god that can’t be used in support of another contradictory god, and stands up to science, and blow Winace out of the water.

44

-“No possible test” means there is absolutely no way to detect it. Which is, as I said above, practially a Websters’ definition of something that does not exist.

If ‘no possible test’ can feel, hear, touch or sense this entity, how do you “know” that entity exists? We can postulate entire universes of things that don’t exist- Asimov did it regularly- but popular fiction is, after all, still fiction.

45

Personally, I would really like to see any evidence for any god, that “stands up to science”. If you have such a tidbit, by all means, please share it.

46

Whoa! Talk about a strawman argument!

I said that history is not encompassed by science. This is NOT (repeat: NOT) the same as saying it is mere supersitition. Your contention is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle.

I said that politics is not encompassed by science. It may occasionally use “scientific” techniques, but not everything in politics is scientifically determined.

BTW, I placed quotation marks around the word “scientific” because, strictly speaking, the analysis of voter data is not an example of the scientific method.

Where did I say such a thing? It seems to me that you’re putting words in my mouth.

This is precisely what Apos was complaining about. If you’re going to ask me to defend a claim, please wait until I actually make such a claim. As it is, you’re attempting to (ahem) “defend” your position by placing the burden of evidence on someone else.
As for your diatribe on the wonderful value of science…

Nobody denies that science is a marvelous, self-correcting thing. That is NOT the matter under debate, and you know it! The question is whether the scientific method is always NECESSARY in order to discern something. Quite simply, it is NOT.

So earlier, you insinuated that science was the only way to know the truth. Now, you are suddenly acting as though the value and correctness of science were under debate. In logic, that is known as a strawman argument – presenting one thesis, but arguing for a more defensible one in its stead.

47

Isn’t this exactly the case with consciousness? I do not know that you are conscious, but somehow it makes sense to assume that you are, as I am.

48

Emphasis on the word “somewhat.” It is NOT encompassed by science, and it does not use the scientific method – which is precisely the standard of proof that Doc Nickel requested.

Of course. I never said otherwise. Remember, I’m not the one who’s defending the argument that science is the only path to truth.

You may find it amusing, yet interestingly enough, you didn’t refute my point. Not everything that we know or believe about the world is learned through science – in fact, science is forced to make certain assumptions, and thus, can not test the validity of those assumptions.

Whoa. Multiple strawmen there.

Nobody claimed “irrefutability,” and nobody claimed that non-scientific claims have “no empirically detectable or predictable effects on anything.”

Just why are you claiming that matters “outside the realm of scientific testing” are matters which have “no empirically detectable or predictable effects on anything”? That is a false dilemma, and if you’re an educated person, then you know that to be so. Admittedly, it permits a more defensible claim, but that’s surely no justification for invoking this false definition.

49

Emphasis on the word “somewhat.” It is NOT encompassed by science, and it does not use the scientific method – which is precisely the standard of proof that Doc Nickel requested.

Of course. I never said otherwise. Remember, I’m not the one who’s defending the argument that science is the only path to truth.

You may find it amusing, yet interestingly enough, you didn’t refute my point. Not everything that we know or believe about the world is learned through science – in fact, science is forced to make certain assumptions, and thus, can not test the validity of those assumptions.

Whoa. Multiple strawmen there.

Nobody claimed “irrefutability,” and nobody claimed that non-scientific claims have “no empirically detectable or predictable effects on anything.”

Just why are you claiming that matters “outside the realm of scientific testing” are matters which have “no empirically detectable or predictable effects on anything”? That is a false dilemma, and if you’re an educated person, then you know that to be so. Admittedly, it permits a more defensible claim, but that’s surely no justification for invoking this false definition.

50

Ah yes, straw men and thus unworthy of notice or further thought. Actually, I thought it was sarcasm, not straw.

All right, do me this favor so that I may give my straw men the hearts they need: What is your definition of “Truth”?

51

Um, I think he said that because, if a given thing is empirically detectable and/or has a predictable effect, then it must be scientifically testable, by definition.

Only if you are using a non-standard definition of “scientific testing”.

52

Not true. It must also be reproducible under highly controlled circumstances. Those conditions are absolutely essential for the scientific method to have validity.

Not true. Reproducibility and testability are essential components of scientific testing. If someting is not reproducible or testable, then it does not lend itself to strict scientific methodology.

That is why it is pointless to petulantly demand that prayer be subjected to scientific analysis before it is deemed valid. Prayer requires the cooperation of a deity – one who might not choose to play along with this game. Its effects are there unreproducible using scientific means.

53

Exactly my point. Not only were you not conducting an experiment, but there is nothing objective at all about your claims. Your “evidence” is not valid for the purpose of refuting WinAce’s claim that there is no empirically verifiable effect of prayer.

That still wouldn’t do it. The proper methodology would be a double-blind study. The way you have set it up, the results of your “experiment” will be biased. (But I’m sure you know that.)

And that’s awfully convenient, isn’t it? You claim that the only way to test it scientifically is to do it in a way that is obviously biased. So when WinAce makes the claim that there is no objective evidence to support the effectiveness of prayer, how is it that you are disagreeing with him?

54

Oh, for pity’s sake.

Here’s a hint. If your opponents start asking for definitions of “truth” (or “is,” or “exist,” or “reality”) before they can proceed, that’s a pretty good indication they’re attempting to salvage an indefensible position. It’s also a pretty good way to continue debating while giving marginal attention to the heart of one’s OP.
Truth is what accurately describes reality. This is pretty much a truism, and intuitively obvious to any reasonable person. Now if you choose to debate this definition… well, let’s just say that I’m prepared to step aside and watch the ensuing train wreck.

55

It appears that some of you are still unwilling to accept anything which is not scientifically provable.

Do you indeed believe that truth can only be discerned using science?

56

This is not an assumption - you get evidence all the time that someone is conscious, and that other things, tables for instance, are not. Forget about know, science is not about knowing absolutely, only making, getting evidence for, and disproving hypotheses.

57

What does scientifically provable mean? Things are not proved in science - your claim that they are indicates to me that your knowledge of how science works is quite cloudy, or that you are playing fast and loose with the language.

58

By your definition, neither evolution or cosmology is science, neither being reproducible.

Actually, observations of something irreproducible certainly count as scientific. There are claims made in the Bible that are as amenable to scientific study as the Big Bang, and all of these that would not be knowable by someone writing in ~ 750 BCE have been falsified. (Age of the earth, the Noachian flood, etc.)

As for prayer, your claim is indistinguishable from that of the psychic who says that his powers don’t work while being tested. One wonders why a deity who happily gave proofs of his powers in Biblical days is now so shy.

59

The problem is that many theists on the one hand retreat to faith when challenged about their beliefs, then on the other hand claim that certain behavior should occur or not occur because God said so. An example is the Blue Laws, where one religion, because God said to rest, forbade people of other religions or nonbelievers from open stores on the Sabbath.

If theists prayed, and lived their lives according to what the deity wants (except for the slaughter the infidel part) there would be many fewer debates here.

60

Originally posted by Doc Cathode:

You don’t know me, but yeah, it’s possible that I might have been.
Look. I don’t know how prayer works. But my cat doesn’t know how a can opener works either.
She sure does know when I am using one though, and she often gets fed afterwards.
Not all the time, but often enough that she will sit in the kitchen behind me and yowl.