Statler Waldorf - Raising from the dead.

[Captain Scarlet]

”The laws of nature are the way we describe how the world usually works. If someone drops an apple, it falls to the floor. That’s gravity. However, if someone were to drop an apple and I were to reach over and grab it before it hit the ground, I wouldn’t be overturning the law of gravity. I would simply be intervening. In a similar way, God is able to reach into the world that he created by performing a miracle. He isn’t contravening or overturning the laws of nature. He’s simply intervening” - J.P. Moreland

Nah rubbish. The physical material world empirically always works through the cause and effect inetraction of material things with one another. To propose that a supernatural being could enter this realm and intervene as you suggest would assert that there is a whole new undiscovered mechnaism at work. You catching and apple is not an unknown effect and therefore this analogy fails.

[tackattack]

Yes it does make that assumption EV.

CS & Dar, no I'm afraid it doesn't simply fall apart. The "laws" of nature are just regularities. They're not axiomatic. As soon as something happens different, we have to go back and reevaluate, that's the nature of science. They're a summation of observation. Most of the stances here, while touting openness of opinions/ ideology, hold a stance where it is improbable to observe anything immaterial. The notion of "law" falsely implies necessity and lends credence to a, IMO, skewed view of reality in some. A whole new undiscovered mechanism is what Science is about! What should be considered as a natural law is anything wrapped up in time. It's a table of consistent observations over time . 1000 years ago science was far different than today, and 100 years from now people will probably be laughing at how trivially we thought now. Just my opinion.

[Captain Scarlet]

Yes it does make that assumption EV.
CS & Dar, no I'm afraid it doesn't simply fall apart. The "laws" of nature are just regularities. They're not axiomatic. As soon as something happens different, we have to go back and reevaluate, that's the nature of science. They're a summation of observation. Most of the stances here, while touting openness of opinions/ ideology, hold a stance where it is improbable to observe anything immaterial. The notion of "law" falsely implies necessity and lends credence to a, IMO, skewed view of reality in some. A whole new undiscovered mechanism is what Science is about! What should be considered as a natural law is anything wrapped up in time. It's a table of consistent observations over time . 1000 years ago science was far different than today, and 100 years from now people will probably be laughing at how trivially we thought now. Just my opinion.

Yes it does fall apart I'm afraid. Science is indeed open to revisions of theroies that explain facts better but only insofar as they are testable, falsifiable, repeatable and of the material world. By definition something immaterial cannot meet this criteria and thus is ruled out. If it met the criteria then it would be observable and therefore of the material world and cease to be immaterial. In the whole of human history no single event has ever been observed that is uniquely and undeniabley the result of immaterial caustaion, wheras there are billions upon billions of such events every 10 to the -43 seconds in the universe which could be observed that are unquestionabley of a materialistic origin. Just my opinion but your view is an appeal to magic.

[Minimalist]

The "laws" of nature are just regularities.

And magic only exists in Harry Potter novels, Tack.


Oh...and your bible.

[theVOID]

The "laws" of nature are just regularities. They're not axiomatic.

And to say something happened that is inconsistent with 'regularities' (in this case constants) is to say that something was inconsistent with our background knowledge. Not a good start...

As soon as something happens different, we have to go back and reevaluate, that's the nature of science.

So you should rightly confirm the hypothesis that people can rise from the dead before you let it inform your world-view should you not?

They're a summation of observation. Most of the stances here, while touting openness of opinions/ ideology, hold a stance where it is improbable to observe anything immaterial.

To directly observe it, that's true by definition, but to observe the effects of an immaterial thing that has a causal relationship with physical reality is by no means off-limits. An immaterial God that actually answered prayers would give us plenty of data to examine, which has been done, with no results of any significance.

The notion of "law" falsely implies necessity and lends credence to a, IMO, skewed view of reality in some.

Actually, the physical laws (constants) are necessarily true but we are not necessarily correct in declaring something constant. If say alpha (the electroweak force) is not actually constant then it is not actually a law, but all laws that are valid are still necessarily true, at the very least in relation to all other laws like f=G(m^1 m^2)/r^2, each of these values necessarily has the same relationship with the other values, even if G changes.

A whole new undiscovered mechanism is what Science is about! What should be considered as a natural law is anything wrapped up in time. It's a table of consistent observations over time . 1000 years ago science was far different than today, and 100 years from now people will probably be laughing at how trivially we thought now. Just my opinion.

Science is about a methodology for approaching reality and nothing more, they won't laugh at our tentative conclusions because their application of the model will be the same and if they consider the same data we have it is highly likely they will get the same result, the only difference will be in the data considered in the application of the method.

We don't laugh at Galileo or Capernicus being wrong about many astronomical events, because the underline methodology would yield the same result if we used the data they had available.

And there are many more reasons for considering a phenomenon to be constant other than "we measured it 1000 times and it's the same". I could take 1000 measurements of the colour of my house, for instance, that does not necessarily make it green.

[tackattack]

@ min

"the only difference will be in the data considered in the application of the method"

"An immaterial God that actually answered prayers would give us plenty of data to examine, which has been done, with no results of any significance."

1- So shouldn't you allow all data or at least all data relevant to the subject?
2- God is not only immaterial, he's a personal God. I can list at least 30 prayers of mine that he's answered with more than a "no" or a "wait". Your scientific experimental qualifiers are trying to objectively prove something not only immaterial, but subjective. I guess that leaves us with differing perspectives and an agreement to disagree because you have lack of revelation subjectively. My experiences can't prove anything to anyone but me, but that doesn't mean that they're by default delusion, rationalizations or prove nothing. I guess you just have to take a look and see if you're really not offhandedly dismissing not only relevant but proper evidence based on the subject of proof.

"Yes it does fall apart I'm afraid. Science is indeed open to revisions of theories that explain facts better but only insofar as they are testable, falsifiable, repeatable and of the material world. By definition something immaterial cannot meet this criteria and thus is ruled out. If it met the criteria then it would be observable and therefore of the material world and cease to be immaterial. In the whole of human history no single event has ever been observed that is uniquely and undeniabley the result of immaterial caustaion, wheras there are billions upon billions of such events every 10 to the -43 seconds in the universe which could be observed that are unquestionabley of a materialistic origin. Just my opinion but your view is an appeal to magic. "

Just because something is subjectively observable does not mean it is of the materialistic view of the world. I'm far too tired with the time change to give this a lot of effort at this time... tomorrow... night all

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

1- So shouldn't you allow all data or at least all data relevant to the subject?
2- God is not only immaterial, he's a personal God. I can list at least 30 prayers of mine that he's answered with more than a "no" or a "wait". Your scientific experimental qualifiers are trying to objectively prove something not only immaterial, but subjective. I guess that leaves us with differing perspectives and an agreement to disagree because you have lack of revelation subjectively. My experiences can't prove anything to anyone but me, but that doesn't mean that they're by default delusion, rationalizations or prove nothing. I guess you just have to take a look and see if you're really not offhandedly dismissing not only relevant but proper evidence based on the subject of proof.

1. That depends on the data. False, contaminated, or other kinds of data may have many reasons to be unusable.
2. The arguement of "I'm the only one that sees/hears things so it's a personal experience" is an excellent arguement for 'I'm delusional". I think the only reason you see otherwise is because your delusions coincide with your belief system and not something more ridiculous - like butt-probing alien abduction (which victims of that would attest, with full conviction, actually happened them.)
Either way, 'personal experience' is not proof of anything- regardless of whether or not any of it actually happened.
The reason that answered prayers are more certainly delusional is because all prayers are indistinguishable from non-prayers - in other words, praying gives no greater chance of anything happening than random chance.

[Captain Scarlet]

Just because something is subjectively observable does not mean it is of the materialistic view of the world. I'm far too tired with the time change to give this a lot of effort at this time... tomorrow... night all

If the immaterial were observable we would have observed it. It's still an appeal to magic.

Personal experience again! Yours like mine offer no objective proof whatsoever of anything. Subjectively your experiences re-affirm your views, as mine reaffirm my own.

[theVOID]

@ min

"the only difference will be in the data considered in the application of the method"

"An immaterial God that actually answered prayers would give us plenty of data to examine, which has been done, with no results of any significance."

1- So shouldn't you allow all data or at least all data relevant to the subject?

You can only make solid conclusions within the scope of the trial, there have been studies of various effects of prayer, the most recent one you can find here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

"CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

That is the result we get every time prayer is studied, no matter how careful you are, how you organise the prayers etc there is no effect. I suppose God stops answering them when we start checking up on it right?

2- God is not only immaterial, he's a personal God. I can list at least 30 prayers of mine that he's answered with more than a "no" or a "wait". Your scientific experimental qualifiers are trying to objectively prove something not only immaterial, but subjective.

The results were objective in that they were related directly to recovery from an illness, there is a measurable rate of recovery relative to the control group who were told they were being prayed for and weren't.

What are these 30 prayers tack? And out of all of the prayers you've ever said (which I assume is in the thousands for a life-long Christian) does arguing for the truth of prayer based on 30 hits not stink of conformation bias to you? I could find you an astrologer who's had 30/1,000 'hits' (by the admittedly 'subjective' judgement of what qualifies), thus how can you conclude that your experiences are more legitimate? surely if 30/1,000 is a good number for you then you'd just be drawing a double standard by rejecting astrology.

I guess that leaves us with differing perspectives and an agreement to disagree because you have lack of revelation subjectively. My experiences can't prove anything to anyone but me, but that doesn't mean that they're by default delusion, rationalizations or prove nothing. I guess you just have to take a look and see if you're really not offhandedly dismissing not only relevant but proper evidence based on the subject of proof.

You are epistemically broken, that's the problem. No it does not mean that your experiences are by default 'delusions', what it means is that any other phenomenon that meets such a feeble criteria as 'i've had 30 hits' should rightly be accepted by yourself, to do otherwise is simply a double standard or arrogance in the adoption of 'well i'll only believe my own experiences'.

That train of thought is not one that tends to get at the truth of things, not compared to the methodologies that we have confirmed to be extremely accurate, so excuse me while I scoff at your feeble criteria for conformation, after all, that's the same standard of conformation that people like Andrea Yates use to justify their insanities to themselves. While i'm sure glad you're not mentally insane like her, knowing that your criteria are pretty much the same is not reassuring.

"Yes it does fall apart I'm afraid. Science is indeed open to revisions of theories that explain facts better but only insofar as they are testable, falsifiable, repeatable and of the material world. By definition something immaterial cannot meet this criteria and thus is ruled out. If it met the criteria then it would be observable and therefore of the material world and cease to be immaterial.

I covered this specifically already, stating it again doesn't refute my claim that "to observe the effects of an immaterial thing that has a causal relationship with physical reality is by no means off-limits" That is specifically what the prayer relationship is.

Just because something is subjectively observable does not mean it is of the materialistic view of the world. I'm far too tired with the time change to give this a lot of effort at this time... tomorrow... night all

And just because you experience something that you want to attribute to god does not mean that there is actually a god out there feeding you experiences.

Do you have specific experiences of the trinity or some vague sense that you attribute to God?

[tackattack]

---

@ min

"the only difference will be in the data considered in the application of the method"

"An immaterial God that actually answered prayers would give us plenty of data to examine, which has been done, with no results of any significance."

1- So shouldn't you allow all data or at least all data relevant to the subject?

You can only make solid conclusions within the scope of the trial, there have been studies of various effects of prayer, the most recent one you can find here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

"CONCLUSIONS: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

That is the result we get every time prayer is studied, no matter how careful you are, how you organise the prayers etc there is no effect. I suppose God stops answering them when we start checking up on it right?

2- God is not only immaterial, he's a personal God. I can list at least 30 prayers of mine that he's answered with more than a "no" or a "wait". Your scientific experimental qualifiers are trying to objectively prove something not only immaterial, but subjective.

The results were objective in that they were related directly to recovery from an illness, there is a measurable rate of recovery relative to the control group who were told they were being prayed for and weren't.

What are these 30 prayers tack? And out of all of the prayers you've ever said (which I assume is in the thousands for a life-long Christian) does arguing for the truth of prayer based on 30 hits not stink of conformation bias to you? I could find you an astrologer who's had 30/1,000 'hits' (by the admittedly 'subjective' judgement of what qualifies), thus how can you conclude that your experiences are more legitimate? surely if 30/1,000 is a good number for you then you'd just be drawing a double standard by rejecting astrology.

I guess that leaves us with differing perspectives and an agreement to disagree because you have lack of revelation subjectively. My experiences can't prove anything to anyone but me, but that doesn't mean that they're by default delusion, rationalizations or prove nothing. I guess you just have to take a look and see if you're really not offhandedly dismissing not only relevant but proper evidence based on the subject of proof.

You are epistemically broken, that's the problem. No it does not mean that your experiences are by default 'delusions', what it means is that any other phenomenon that meets such a feeble criteria as 'i've had 30 hits' should rightly be accepted by yourself, to do otherwise is simply a double standard or arrogance in the adoption of 'well i'll only believe my own experiences'.

That train of thought is not one that tends to get at the truth of things, not compared to the methodologies that we have confirmed to be extremely accurate, so excuse me while I scoff at your feeble criteria for conformation, after all, that's the same standard of conformation that people like Andrea Yates use to justify their insanities to themselves. While i'm sure glad you're not mentally insane like her, knowing that your criteria are pretty much the same is not reassuring.

"Yes it does fall apart I'm afraid. Science is indeed open to revisions of theories that explain facts better but only insofar as they are testable, falsifiable, repeatable and of the material world. By definition something immaterial cannot meet this criteria and thus is ruled out. If it met the criteria then it would be observable and therefore of the material world and cease to be immaterial.

I covered this specifically already, stating it again doesn't refute my claim that "to observe the effects of an immaterial thing that has a causal relationship with physical reality is by no means off-limits" That is specifically what the prayer relationship is.

Just because something is subjectively observable does not mean it is of the materialistic view of the world. I'm far too tired with the time change to give this a lot of effort at this time... tomorrow... night all

And just because you experience something that you want to attribute to god does not mean that there is actually a god out there feeding you experiences.

Do you have specific experiences of the trinity or some vague sense that you attribute to God?

---

1 -SMJ Volume 81

The data presented in this report show that the initial randomization resulted in two statistically
similar groups as judged by the results of univariate and multivariate analysis. Prayers to
the Judeo-Christian God were made on behalf of the patients in the prayer group by “born again”
believers in Jesus Christ. Analysis of events after entry into the study showed the prayer group had
less congestive heart failure, required less diuretic and antibiotic therapy, had fewer episodes of
pneumonia, had fewer cardiac arrests, and were less frequently intubated and ventilated. Even
though for these variables the P values were <.05, they could not be considered statistically
significant because of the large number of variables examined. I used two methods to overcome this
statistical limitation: incorporation of the outcome variable into a severity score, and multivariate
analysis. Both of these methods produced statistically significant results in favor of the prayer
group. The severity score showed that the prayer group had an overall better outcome (P < .01)
and the multivariate analysis produced a P value of <.0001 on the basis of the prayer group’s lesser
requirements for antibiotics,

2- The number 30 was just thrown out. Every time I've used or seen used intercessory prayer for healing of individuals, save 1, it has made a positive impact and more often than not a significant one. Yes I've made 10000's of prayers but most are just for confirmation, guidance or peace, not intercessory.
3- I hope this clears up the misconception of my standards