Which Comes First?

[fr0d0]

@ E:

You deny the non scientific. I don't. Logic would suggest that science doesn't answer every question in human understanding. I've already shown why scientific tests would not show anything. You haven't countered that just repeated your statement. Maybe you don't understand how God answers.

If God answers prayers, he interacts with the world in a tangible way, which means it can be tested. Simple as that. All you do is repeat your statements that about God not applying to science, yet he can be tested. As Luke said, outline the test, or are you just blowing smoke?

You test against the known nature of God...

[...]
Genuine prayers are answered? Ha! That's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Something fr0d0 should be all too well familiar with by now. Oh well.

Good post btw.

Baseless & unsupportable assertion. Repeatedly pointed out to you yet still you persist with it.

Not at all. My claim that your assertion is a fallacy is spot on. You can keep denying it, but that doesn't make it not true. You've essentially insulated the test of prayer from being falsifiable, which means it's fucking useless to test scientifically. You know that of course, you want to have it both ways. Claim it's true and can be tested, but refuse to tell us how, and deny it the possibility of being tested by science which just happens to be the best method for discerning what is true about the world. Go figure.

As Arcanus has shown, your use of the fallacy is incorrect.

• Not falsifiable scientifically: as is the nature of God
• I didn't refuse to tell you

Science obviously fails absolutely in discerning the truth about God where philosophy succeeds. Yet you dismiss the philosophical method. Yeah you're going to have a hard time with this. It's self imposed torture tho'.

---

Did someone mention 'choice'? I must've missed it. How could you say you couldn't believe - that's surely akin to saying that you are 100% sure of non existence? Whoops!

No I am not 100% sure, I might believe in the future, but I hope I wouldn't without evidence. And I doubt there will be evidence, but I don't rule it out absolutely. I'd be surprised, yeah, but I don't rule it out.

I thought someone had mentioned choice, and I guess they hadn't, my mistake. Apologies.

Thankyou. You said you would never believe and now you retract that.

Baseless & unsupportable assertion. Repeatedly pointed out to you yet still you persist with it.

It's an opinion of mine that you have been guilty of NTS a few times on these forums.

Like now when you say that prayers are answered if they're genuine. But without a further argument, that implies that if a prayer isn't answered then it must not be genuine. In itself that is fallacious reasoning, because you can just say that any prayer that isn't answered is because it's not genuine, regardless of if it is or not.

You have blind faith that I have committed the NTS fallacy despite it being pointed out to you how it doesn't without successful rebuttal from yourself. Fair enough.

We haven't finished discussing prayer and you jump in with a closing statement before waiting for the answer to that.

Absolutely. Thankyou for your support.

I wasn't supporting you.

I'm saying that your beliefs are apparently so ridiculous that they can't be evidenced, and yet you seem to think this makes it more reasonable for you to believe without evidence. But my point is, that whether there can be evidence or not, how is it rational to believe without any? And if anything, beliefs that are so ridiculous that there can be no evidence for them, would be even more crazy to believe without any, and just go on ahead and believe anyway.

You're talking about evidence with me which isn't permitted in open forum.

The evidence in question is Eilonnwy's to support her understanding of prayer against the biblical understanding which she is apparently criticising. So your tirade against unsupported evidence can't be against me as my evidence is supported. Eilonnwy's on the other hand is yet unsupported.

My God claims have been exhaustively supported. That you ignorantly repeat the demand for scientific proof despite the logic presented to you is inconsequential.

You don't know how he answers, but you can know because it has been detailed for you should you care to look into it. So again you display ignorance of your subject.

How have they been supported? Where has it been demonstrated that God is at all probable to exist? I do not demand scientific proof, I request any valid evidence whatsoever. If you can outdo science and somehow display some other evidence that is valid, be my guest. If you can demonstrate that God is probable in any way, be my guest. Why should I believe that there is any support for God if you can't?

You say it has been detailed for me if I care to look into it, but from what I've seen, I've seen no evidence. And no, this doesn't display my ignorance on the subject, it just displays that I haven't found any evidence, regardless of if there is any or not. You think I'm ignorant of the subject, I don't. I haven't seen any evidence.

You need to get back into your cage to discuss this with me Evie.