|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 18, 2009 1:03:05 GMT -5
off-topic comment: i hate psychology and think a whole lot of it is b.s.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Nov 18, 2009 1:29:11 GMT -5
You seem ignorant, just saying.
I mean, there's definitely psychologists out there who just want money, but psychology does seem to have a lot of basic logic.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Nov 18, 2009 2:00:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Nov 18, 2009 10:53:49 GMT -5
No. It. Can't. Just. Stop. Your attempt at saying prayer has logical elements is completely futile. You have no evidence that there is absolute truth prayer causes healing, and you never will. You can think it causes things to happen, but in reality I would bet millions of prayers go unanswered every single day EVEN IF THERE WAS PROOF PRAYER GOT s**t DONE. You are incredibly thick, you do not realize simple logic. We cannot verify things to be true when they do not have a tangible presence on this Earth. A person getting kicked is actually getting kicked by another person which they CAN SEE, not a space wizard or flying spaghetti monster WHICH THEY CANNOT SEE AND NEVER CAN VERIFY BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN EXIST ON EARTH THEY DWELL IN A MAGICAL FAIRYLAND OR HEAVEN What on earth are you blabbering on about? Off course it can be verified, the girl in question, had two legs of unequal length and a back-ache, and she now has two legs of equal length, and no back-ache. How on earth can that not be verified? I understand you can't verify it, if you can't believe what I say, that's ok, but the length of her legs can be measured, the result can be verified. sheesh. I know I'm a stubborn person, but you're just missing my point or being ridicouless here. Please, calmly and clearly explain to me why when I get kicked, and I feel pain, it is reasonable reasoning to assume that the kick caused the pain, but when I've been prayed for, for a specific thing to happen, and it immidietly happens then and there, it is not reasonable to assume the prayer caused it to happen. Now, please, use arguments. You clearly beat me in rhetorics, I won't argue that, but now you've just been saying that what I say is stupid without properly formulating a reason. Can you please in your next post, clearly and properly express why I'm being a thickheaded fool.
|
|
|
Post by feverstone on Nov 18, 2009 11:41:09 GMT -5
I think Brent's point is that her back ache and leg length could have been "healed" by the bad apple juice she drank earlier that morning. The doctors can't open her up and see a note from God that says, "Zing! The All Powerful was here."
And it's way more complicated than merely faith vs. logic. As far as my blackhole question goes, scientists look at our galaxy and how it works--coming to the conclusion that a massive blackhole exists. Is that faith or logic? Because, for a lot of people, the existence of a god comes from observing the complexities of our environment and the seemingly designed reality.
|
|
|
Post by notavailable on Nov 18, 2009 14:05:18 GMT -5
The idea of God is based off of assumption.
People assume God exists because of the complexities of the environment. People assume God exists because of our seemingly designed reality. And likewise, vandenberg assumes God exists because at the same moment in which prayer for healing occurred, the healing in which he prayed for happened.
From a logical standpoint however, the verification of the "healing" can only be verified fully by one person: the woman who was healed. Her testimony alone, however, is not enough for any sort debatable point. Even though people saw it happen, they themselves did not feel it happen. Only she can.
In any case, prayer is a poor choice for basing your belief in God. Assuming God exists because one prayer was answered is flawed because the very next day you might pray for God to keep it from raining at your friends wedding, and it will rain anyway. Are you to assume that God doesn't exist because the prayer was not answered? Of course not, that would be irrational and ridiculous. however, so would assuming that God does exist based on an answered prayer. They are both futile methods in proving God's existence.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Nov 18, 2009 18:17:43 GMT -5
Vandenberg just insists the only possible way the girls leg healed was because of God. It is a completely ignorant assumption because he deducts his prayer in front of her was the reason the leg grew, that nothing else could possibly be the reason why.
It is flawed logic, prayer cannot be verified to be true because there is no evidence of the existence of God.
There's a word for flawed logic, it's called a fallacy Vandenberg. Just because you can't see any other reason besides God healed the leg, does not mean there isn't one. There are medical anomalies which still stump doctors today, I'm pretty sure you have no expertise on how limbs grow, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 18, 2009 18:27:47 GMT -5
It could be just an illusion or an act set up before the act even happened...
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Nov 19, 2009 13:18:59 GMT -5
Thank you Landon, I agree with your reasoning there, but I base my opinion on more prayers, and on more than prayer. I do realise personal experience is not the strongest of arguments, but deciding that using personal experience in a discussion is automatically fallacious is what I do not agree with. It is flawed logic, prayer cannot be verified to be true because there is no evidence of the existence of God. The evidence (well, the situation suggesting the exitence) of God cannot be verified because there is no evidence of God. Good reasoning there. I base my opinion on more than just this example. I know of various healings recorded and investigated properly, by specialists, who could find no awnser, and were converted. As I said before, I red about such an example in a pretty major Dutch newspaper, big enough to not be able to afford to write poorly investigated rubbish, where the specialists could find no awnser, and the doctor in question was converted because his patient stood up out of her wheelchair during a healing service. I agree I have no expertise on the growing of limbs, but the way I saw it happen defies anything I've ever learned about biology. I specifically did not use an example where a serious illness was healed, because there is medical documentation of serious illnesses randomly leaving, without any known cause. It could be just an illusion or an act set up before the act even happened... The girl in question had no motive. Why on earth would a 16 year old girl, whom I've known for ages, try to make me believe in a miracle I'm al ready convinced to have seen happening? First of all, she gains nothing from having me believe in miracles, secondly, I all ready believed, and have witnessed similar miracles before this happened. She tricking me would be highly unlikely because there isn't a motive.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Nov 19, 2009 17:26:52 GMT -5
You're the one with the flawed reasoning vandenberg. Your reasoning is a slippery slope fallacy.
You assume that your God exists in your argument. God ABSOLUTELY has to exist for your prayers to be answered right?
But there is no evidence of God, and that's the slippery slope, if God cannot be verified, your argument falls flat on its ass.
Refer to the sig please.
|
|
|
Post by Keven on Nov 19, 2009 19:02:47 GMT -5
As I said before, I red about such an example in a pretty major Dutch newspaper, big enough to not be able to afford to write poorly investigated rubbish, where the specialists could find no awnser, and the doctor in question was converted because his patient stood up out of her wheelchair during a healing service. Do major newspapers over there actually do a good job? Not saying I'm doubting you, but the idea of big news services giving a s**t about publishing "poorly investigated rubbish" seems so strange and foreign to me.
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Nov 20, 2009 7:24:57 GMT -5
In any case, prayer is a poor choice for basing your belief in God. Assuming God exists because one prayer was answered is flawed because the very next day you might pray for God to keep it from raining at your friends wedding, and it will rain anyway. Are you to assume that God doesn't exist because the prayer was not answered? Of course not, that would be irrational and ridiculous. however, so would assuming that God does exist based on an answered prayer. They are both futile methods in proving God's existence. Exactly. My cousin does not call himself a Christian. One time he told me he had lost something really important and prayed to God about it. As soon as he did, he saw it had fallen behind his bed. He says "how could anyone not believe in God after that?" I didn't say much at the time, but I think I should have told him that this lone experience didn't prove anything. People are so shallow.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Nov 20, 2009 9:45:21 GMT -5
Do major newspapers over there actually do a good job? Not saying I'm doubting you, but the idea of big news services giving a s**t about publishing "poorly investigated rubbish" seems so strange and foreign to me. Well, if people found out they were publishing things that wern't true, they'd stop buying the newspaper wouldn't they? Also, most of the 'investigation' in this particular example has been done by the doctor, the doctor was the one who went to the experts with his patient. Also note that this healer guy enjoys a reasonable ammount of fame in the charismatic world in Holland, and this very newspaper has published a few pretty skeptical and critical articles about this man before. You assume that your God exists in your argument. God ABSOLUTELY has to exist for your prayers to be answered right? But there is no evidence of God, and that's the slippery slope, if God cannot be verified, your argument falls flat on its ass. Please tell me you meant to say that I was wrong because I assumed it verified my prayers were awnsered, whereas there is a theoretical possibility that it was all just a crazy coïncedence. If not, you are wrong, because yes, there has to be something to awnser it if it was awnsered. Also, please stop trying to refute proposed evidence by saying that there is no evidence. That there is no evidence ought to be your conclusion, not your argument, when you are refuting the proposed evidence. You have to explain to me why it is not evidence, and having succesfully done so, you ought to conclude there is no evidence. Now, I'm just assuming that you just explained yourself poorly. I would also say that it is true that I cannot base my conclusion on one thing that, however unlikely, may be coïncedence. I'll say it again, and I'll keep on saying it; I'm just trying to show you my faith is not without base, though one can talk oneself out of it, the chance that some of these things I've shared with you are all just coïncedences, is quite small. Though I realise that accepting the God-theory as an awnser is not logically or scientifically infallible, it is certainly not without thought or base, and as far as I can see, working with this theory has not failed me yet, and untill it will fail me, I will continue to believe/have faith in it, and I will continue to explain it to anybody who claims my faith is absurd and without any reason.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 20, 2009 10:40:45 GMT -5
I stopped trying to investigate the spiritual realm/lack thereof through material means a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Keven on Nov 20, 2009 18:40:17 GMT -5
Do major newspapers over there actually do a good job? Not saying I'm doubting you, but the idea of big news services giving a s**t about publishing "poorly investigated rubbish" seems so strange and foreign to me. Well, if people found out they were publishing things that wern't true, they'd stop buying the newspaper wouldn't they? Also, most of the 'investigation' in this particular example has been done by the doctor, the doctor was the one who went to the experts with his patient. Also note that this healer guy enjoys a reasonable ammount of fame in the charismatic world in Holland, and this very newspaper has published a few pretty skeptical and critical articles about this man before. You would think they'd stop buying the paper, but I'm just saying that journalism in America seems to be more about "get the exciting story" than "get the right story" at times.
|
|