(May 18, 2014 at 2:46 am)Esquilax Wrote: Nice of you to just baldly assert that.

But in the real world, if there's no failure state for a claim, then there's no way to test that claim, and hence no possibility of being rationally justified in believing it. You theists are committed to retracting every possible failure state for your claims as though that somehow makes them bulletproof, when in actuality all it does is make them untestable and pointless.

You've moved the goal post yet again. Before it was logically valid...now it is rationally justified in believing it. "Logically valid" is not even close to being the same as "rationally justified in believing it". You know I don't like to argue with you because you play these games all the time while accusing your opponents of doing the same.

(May 18, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: You've moved the goal post yet again. Before it was logically valid...now it is rationally justified in believing it. "Logically valid" is not even close to being the same as "rationally justified in believing it". You know I don't like to argue with you because you play these games all the time while accusing your opponents of doing the same.

So I take it you have no response beyond whiny quibbles over wording?

Impossible study. It's all up to coicidence unless there is somebody tampering with results.

(May 18, 2014 at 2:30 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 18, 2014 at 2:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: You've moved the goal post yet again. Before it was logically valid...now it is rationally justified in believing it. "Logically valid" is not even close to being the same as "rationally justified in believing it". You know I don't like to argue with you because you play these games all the time while accusing your opponents of doing the same.

So I take it you have no response beyond whiny quibbles over wording?

I'm not splitting hairs here. "Logically invalid" is not the same thing as "rationally justified in believing it".....it is not even close to being the same thing. There is no quibbling. There is only you moving the goal post....and you pull crap like this all time.

Quibbling? My ass....you are just attempting to obfuscate your errors.

Even if prayer was somehow scientifically proven effective, that doesn't necessarily entail God exists.

(May 18, 2014 at 2:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm not splitting hairs here. "Logically invalid" is not the same thing as "rationally justified in believing it".....it is not even close to being the same thing. There is no quibbling. There is only you moving the goal post....and you pull crap like this all time.

Quibbling? My ass....you are just attempting to obfuscate your errors.

And when I specifically explained what I meant the post after you asked me to, that didn't give you any hints as to what I was saying?

That's why I say you're quibbling, because I've had this pages long dialogue going into what I'm talking about and so on, and your only response once I'd fully explained myself was "nuh uh!": just an assertion sans evidence. You've got nowhere to go and so you're clucking about moving goalposts, probably because it's a term that cropped up in my last post and you somehow think "no you!" is also an argument.

(May 18, 2014 at 2:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 18, 2014 at 2:38 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm not splitting hairs here. "Logically invalid" is not the same thing as "rationally justified in believing it".....it is not even close to being the same thing. There is no quibbling. There is only you moving the goal post....and you pull crap like this all time.

Quibbling? My ass....you are just attempting to obfuscate your errors.

And when I specifically explained what I meant the post after you asked me to, that didn't give you any hints as to what I was saying?

Your point was this:

Quote:You're not saying anything new here, is my point. We already know how theists will scrabble to turn their own claims into vague, intangible messes.

What theist will do has nothing to do with the scientific validity of prayer studies. By talking about what theist might do...you are merely shifting the goal post. You're very articulate but in the final analysis your argumentation sucks.

(May 18, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: What theist will do has nothing to do with the scientific validity of prayer studies. By talking about what theist might do...you are merely shifting the goal post. You're very articulate but in the final analysis your argumentation sucks.

I'm saying that I agree with your conclusion, but that I disagree with the idea that the scientific methodology is purely at fault, considering the amorphous concept the experiments sought to test. Any scientific measure of prayer is pointless because the god concept is formulated to defy falsifiability, and is often changed on the fly to keep it that way; just criticizing the methodology behind the experiment is missing the root cause, is my point.

(May 18, 2014 at 1:50 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: How many faith healers does your local hospital employ?

Let me see.... All of the ones around here employ...zero.

Odd that...

A clear sign of religious persecution, to be sure.

(May 18, 2014 at 3:02 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 18, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: What theist will do has nothing to do with the scientific validity of prayer studies. By talking about what theist might do...you are merely shifting the goal post. You're very articulate but in the final analysis your argumentation sucks.

I'm saying that I agree with your conclusion, but that I disagree with the idea that the scientific methodology is purely at fault, considering the amorphous concept the experiments sought to test. Any scientific measure of prayer is pointless because the god concept is formulated to defy falsifiability, and is often changed on the fly to keep it that way; just criticizing the methodology behind the experiment is missing the root cause, is my point.

So you blame theism because some scientist conduct bad experiments? I just blame bad scientists for conducting poor experiments.