mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Please state the point you made which we all agree with. That we could use the scientific method to test for God being part of a natural mechanism. I think his point is that some aspects of religion are amenable to the scientific method, but when he says it, it's "doing science on God" which is nonsensical. Yes, that was just an expression. Doing science on god is not using the scientific method to test for God being part of a natural mechanism. To do science on god we would first need to get results that finds god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 And I don't know how I can get clobbered when the opposition agrees with my point. Because it doesn't. You seem to think it is irrelevant that the opposition does not agree with your point while you claim that they do agree with you. If you are talking about the results of the study, We were never discussing the results. I acknowledge the negative findings. Is that what you were saying? Please state the point you made which we all agree with. That we could use the scientific method to test for God being part of a natural mechanism. Then you have missed the point of all the conversations. Science has nothing to say about God. Prayer is an indirect measure, the closest we can come. OK Edit: I see your response that it is a figure of speech--but one that greatly confuses the issue. Yes, and I had to listen to pages of crap about how Christians need to learn about science.....pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Please state the point you made which we all agree with. That we could use the scientific method to test for God being part of a natural mechanism. I think his point is that some aspects of religion are amenable to the scientific method, but when he says it, it's "doing science on God" which is nonsensical. Yes, that was just an expression. Doing science on god is not using the scientific method to test for God being part of a natural mechanism. To do science on god we would first need to get results that find god. I'm not going to argue that expression. I just used it here a few posts ago. That's not the point of the pages of discussion and the use of those particular words was not the past point either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why not say precisely what you mean, End? Which seems to be that some aspects of religion are amenable to the scientific method. Then we can all go to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So your point was that we can use the scientific method to test predictions based on the idea that there is a god but you are not interested in talking about the consistent results of those tests. Congratulations on making "your point" to BAA which just so happens to be something he figured out years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 So your point was that we can use the scientific method to test predictions based on the idea that there is a god but you are not interested in talking about the consistent results of those tests. Congratulations on making "your point" to BAA which just so happens to be something he figured out years ago. I predict he will attempt to explain away the results with some BS like "they weren't praying right" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why not say precisely what you mean, End? Which seems to be that some aspects of religion are amenable to the scientific method. Then we can all go to bed. I dropped out of high school. I don't write well. I often put words in the wrong order. And the university I graduated from, I think my chemistry degree required a sum total of two English lit classes. So really, the last time I practiced sentence structure or technical writing was literally 35 plus years ago? So yes, I agree completely with the better "translation" of my thoughts. This happens often to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So your point was that we can use the scientific method to test predictions based on the idea that there is a god but you are not interested in talking about the consistent results of those tests. Congratulations on making "your point" to BAA which just so happens to be something he figured out years ago. I predict he will attempt to explain away the results with some BS like "they weren't praying right" Or we could say they weren't righteous, or not to test God. It's all Biblical. How would we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So your point was that we can use the scientific method to test predictions based on the idea that there is a god but you are not interested in talking about the consistent results of those tests. Congratulations on making "your point" to BAA which just so happens to be something he figured out years ago. Go re-read the conversation if you would like. It was never about the results. It was about the dumb Christian who says we can apply the scientific method to such things. Betting we could find a study that says prayer works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 So your point was that we can use the scientific method to test predictions based on the idea that there is a god but you are not interested in talking about the consistent results of those tests. Congratulations on making "your point" to BAA which just so happens to be something he figured out years ago. I predict he will attempt to explain away the results with some BS like "they weren't praying right" Or we could say they weren't righteous, or not to test God. It's all Biblical. How would we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So your point was that we can use the scientific method to test predictions based on the idea that there is a god but you are not interested in talking about the consistent results of those tests. Congratulations on making "your point" to BAA which just so happens to be something he figured out years ago. I predict he will attempt to explain away the results with some BS like "they weren't praying right" Or we could say they weren't righteous, or not to test God. It's all Biblical. How would we know. Logic. Humans create gods. The idea that there is a god in our universe makes as much sense as the idea that our universe was created by a model T Ford. I mean, you can't really be sure that our universe wasn't created by a model T Ford, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Don't let me keep you from going to bed....I'm just up injecting samples through these chromatographs.... NOOOO!!! Christians can't do science!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 End, just join us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So your point was that we can use the scientific method to test predictions based on the idea that there is a god but you are not interested in talking about the consistent results of those tests. Congratulations on making "your point" to BAA which just so happens to be something he figured out years ago. Go re-read the conversation if you would like. It was never about the results. It was about the dumb Christian who says we can apply the scientific method to such things. Betting we could find a study that says prayer works. And every study you find with that conclusion will be bogus. The research will be faked. There will be a religious fundie with an agenda pulling the strings. Q: How many Christians does it take to heal an amputee? A: It doesn't matter because God hates amputees. God answers prayer by helping Christians find the last place they put their keys and helping millions of children to build character by having them lose the battle to deadly disease. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So your point was that we can use the scientific method to test predictions based on the idea that there is a god but you are not interested in talking about the consistent results of those tests. Congratulations on making "your point" to BAA which just so happens to be something he figured out years ago. I predict he will attempt to explain away the results with some BS like "they weren't praying right" Or we could say they weren't righteous, or not to test God. It's all Biblical. How would we know. You're right, those guys putting the Bible together were careful to cover their ass. Sorry, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 End, just join us. I already said I could do it, I just wouldn't believe myself. Now THAT would indeed make me a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Hey Fwee, feel free to jump back in and say some more stupid shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Nah. I had enough. You win. Jesus saves. God is love. The holy spirit is real. And so are satyrs... Snakes and donkeys talk. I finally embrace the truth you bring to us! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 End3 wrote... "Yet we can have a scientific study regarding God?" "Wait BAA acknowledged the science." Yes, I did. As far as I'm concerned the Templeton study was a bona fide scientific study on the efficacy of prayer to assist the healing of CAGB patients. The subject of this study was exactly that and NO MORE than that. The study DID NOT seek to establish that God was responsible for any detected effects. This is where you've jumped ahead, End. The Templeton study was NOT a scientific study regarding God. It was a study on the efficacy of prayer in the healing of certain patients. Establishing who or what was responsible for that healing was NOT within the remit of that study. Do you see the difference? You've jumped ahead of the Templeton scientists and medics and drawn a faith-based conclusion that they never came to and that was not in their remit. Their study was about prayer and patients - not about who or what was healing those patients. Now, I know you believe by faith that any healing detected would have been caused by God. That's cool. These are your religious beliefs. But please pay close attention to the remit and the findings of the Templeton study. It was never the aim of the study to establish that God was causing the healing. The only aim was to determine if patients prayed for healed more rapidly than those who weren't or those who didn't know if they were being prayed for or not. Do you see how the study did not establish that God was the cause of the healing? . . . So now I must state my position on this issue with as much clarity as I can, to avoid misunderstandings. 1. I acknowledge that the Templeton study was science and was conducted in a scientifically valid way. 2. The remit of that study was confined to detecting healing in test groups of patients who were being prayed for. 3. The remit of that study was not to establish a cause for any detected healing, but only to detect any healing. 4. Therefore, that study cannot be said to be a scientific study regarding God. It was a scientific study regarding the efficacy of prayer on healing. 5. No detectable effects were found in the study. 6. To make a connection between the study and God is to go beyond it's remit and it's findings. 7. To make a faith-based connection between the study and God is to step outside of science altogether and into the domain of religion. . . . I hope this clarifies the issue. Thanks, BAA. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted September 4, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted September 4, 2014 Just fill in the blank so I know where everyone stands so we can quit arguing. Man up and vote. Is a study of prayer efficacy science? MM BAA Roz Orbit Directionless Prof Is a study of sin science? MM BAA Roz Orbit Directionless Prof Not going to hurt my feelings. VOTE, it's the American thing to do.... Is a study on prayer science? Yes, if it is done using the scientific method. Is a study on sin science? Yes, if there is a coherent working definition of sin and some proposed effect is supposed to have, and the scientific method is used. Same qualifications apply to prayer or anything else and it's proposed effects one wishes to evaluate. Thanks, another man drops his shorts and confirms his gonads.. I agree with Neverland. The study on prayer was done using sound scientific techniques and principles. However, before a study on sin could be performed, "sin" would have to be given a workable definition and some method of demonstrably measuring its effects on a person would have to be devised. If the definition of "sin" includes anything to the effect of "displeasing to god(s)", then we would need to find said god(s) in order to determine which "sins" really do "displease them". It could be done, in theory; but it would be a lot trickier than prayer, for which we already have a workable definition and for which our measurement determined that it has no effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Bless you, BAA. You truly are a godsend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I'm assuming we can say that "prayer" is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of invoking God to make a difference. If we are saying this study was to define whether it made a difference for people to know that others cared for them or were in their thoughts, I can see that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
directionless Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 (Maybe this belongs in a separate thread, or maybe I should add it to the questions for ironhorse thread. It seemed somewhat relevant to this topic though.) Some Christians have a strange definition of faith that they use to answer religious questions. - They don't think they need a reason to believe in Christianity because they have "faith". - They think "faith" is independent of "works" (or at least more important) So we have this thing called "faith" that exists for no reason and its existence has no implications. "Faith" becomes meaningless. Christians need to explain why they have faith that Christianity is true. It's not possible to have "faith" for no reason. Also I would claim that "faith" must have some implications in behavior. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 I'm assuming we can say that "prayer" is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of invoking God to make a difference. If we are saying this study was to define whether it made a difference for people to know that others cared for them or were in their thoughts, I can see that as well. Do you think every word should have a personal meaning defined by you? Prayer is the very definition of invoking gods to make a difference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted September 4, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted September 4, 2014 I'm assuming we can say that "prayer" is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of invoking God to make a difference. If we are saying this study was to define whether it made a difference for people to know that others cared for them or were in their thoughts, I can see that as well. Do you think every word should have a personal meaning defined by you? Prayer is the very definition of invoking gods to make a difference. And science demonstrates it has no effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts