But seriously . . . atheism?

[eques]

Pino, it's entirely possible for somebody to think rationally given that they proceed from premises in a rational manner.  That said, I don't see any precedent for your assertion that rational thought believes something is true until it is proven untrue.  I'd think that rational thought does not make judgment calls on matters it cannot determine the truth or untruth of.  Therefore, a rational person, with a given set of premises, can conceivably come up with "God exists," "God does not exist," and "I don't know."  It takes much diligence to dig into one's premises to see if they are accurate.

Also, I'm not sure where you get that atoms are 99% energy.  Atoms are almost entirely empty space.  The diameter of a proton is about 10^-14 m, while the diameter of a hydrogen atom is 2.6 x 10^-11 m.  Now, if you want to believe that the empty space is energy, I can't stop you, but there's nothing that I know of that indicates that to be the case.

You state your point, but I honestly don't know how that applies to what you said before.  I don't think anybody would quite disagree that simply because there's no explanation that a phenomenon's existence is called into question.  Not many people (if any) would question the existence of gravity, but the actual explanation of how it works is still a subject of inquiry and not decided conclusively, if at all.

Finally, I think there's a big difference between gamma rays and God.  We may not be able to perceive gamma rays with our eyes, but we can observe its effects with instruments and detectors.  God, on the other hand, is nowhere nearly as conclusive.  There's no "God detector" except for what people claim to have in their heads or souls or spirits somewhere.  Nobody that I'm aware of has been able to set up an experiment to show the direct or indirect effects of God.

[Braddogg]

If you are an Atheist, it is because you think irrationaly.
Rational thought has a key importance i rember reading about. It states that belive something is true untill it is proven un-true. Beliving something that has no proof of being true, but no proof of being false is rational

[. . .]

My point is, just because something cant be explaind, does not mean it cannot exist.

Okay, let's run with this a little.  Do you believe in fairies and ghosts and Thor and Zeus?  Why or why not?

[Caleb]

There is a certain line of thinking that says that whenever there is an unexplained phenomenon and someone presents an explanation, those who doubt the explanation ought to at least considerthe possibility and temper their criticism until such time as they are able to present an alternative explanation.

In this case, the unexplained phenomenon is existence itself.  I posit God.

Your explanation as to causation?

[eques]

Caleb,

Are you responding to my comments?  It's difficult to tell.

If so, why are you asking that question?

[Caleb]

It was actually to Braddogg.  He likes to compare believing in God to believing in unicorns.  There is a gigantic difference, inasmuch as God is an explanation to certain phenomena whereas a unicorn is not.  If there were something that could only be explained by positing a unicorn, and if the unicorn was the only proffered solution to the problem, even if I didn't believe in unicorns I should most likely hold my tongue until I had a better solution.

Caleb

[Braddogg]

There is a certain line of thinking that says that whenever there is an unexplained phenomenon and someone presents an explanation, those who doubt the explanation ought to at least considerthe possibility and temper their criticism until such time as they are able to present an alternative explanation.

In this case, the unexplained phenomenon is existence itself.  I posit God.

Your explanation as to causation?

I suppose I disagree with that line of thinking.  We currently don't know why people yawn.  That doesn't mean I have to respect or "consider the possibility" for more than a few seconds that leprechauns cause yawning.  Show me some proof (a few snapshots of a leprechaun prying open someone's mouth or something), then we'll talk.  Are you saying that's unreasonable?  I mean, what sort of response should I have to that proposition, that leprechauns cause yawning?

The reason I take that position is that for an unexplained phenomenon there are an infinite number of potential explanations.  If I had to sift through each of them, I would spend my entire life doing this.  It's better, I think, to wait for evidence and then examine the claims.

I think I've been quite clear that I don't think there is enough evidence to prove the God hypothesis.  If evidence is discovered, or if I'm exposed to evidence that other people have already discovered, then I'll certainly re-examine it.  And remember, Caleb, I spent 21 years as a Christian, it's not that I'm unfamiliar with the arguments, it's that I don't find them convincing anymore.  That is to say, I don't find them having anything to do with reality.

What's my alternative explanation to how the universe is created?  I don't have one.  I don't have to have one to know that yours isn't right.  I don't have to know what the square root of 1,223,403,453 is to know that the answer isn't "a banana."

[dalebert]

There is a certain line of thinking that says that whenever there is an unexplained phenomenon and someone presents an explanation, those who doubt the explanation ought to at least considerthe possibility and temper their criticism until such time as they are able to present an alternative explanation.

That's like saying that my opinion on the quality of a movie is worthless unless I've made movies myself. One can critique the value of one explanation for something without having an alternative explanation. If an explanation is particularly absurd and there is little to no evidence to support it, then it's reasonable to say so and to not act on the basis that it's true.

Look at Global Warming as an analogy. The skeptics aren't claiming to know how to predict the weather decades into the future and understand all the vast complexities of it. In fact, they're saying they can't because it's too complicated and the alarmists haven't backed up their ridiculous doomsday claims and haven't shown any competence that they can predict anything either. The skeptics have done a very good job of debunking a specific claim about human influence on the global weather (specifically C02 production), and that's all that's necessary for us to say it's harmful to spend vast resources on a claim that has no good evidence to support it.

In this case, the unexplained phenomenon is existence itself.  I posit God.

Your explanation as to causation?

But that's not really causation, particularly since you don't (I presume) have a causation for the existence of God. That's not a far cry from saying it "just is". God isn't an explanation. It's a cop-out. Something akin to the notion of a supreme being may in fact exist, but I think the tendency to use it to explain everything is based on a human weakness to desire to have everything explained. I think it's more reasonable to continue looking for explanations, even evidence of a supreme being if we want, while accepting that we don't know everything about the vast universe and probably will never understand it completely. If we don't accept our own limitations, we will not be inclined to grow and continue to learn.

[MaineShark]

There is a certain line of thinking that says that whenever there is an unexplained phenomenon and someone presents an explanation, those who doubt the explanation ought to at least considerthe possibility and temper their criticism until such time as they are able to present an alternative explanation.

...

What's my alternative explanation to how the universe is created?  I don't have one.  I don't have to have one to know that yours isn't right.  I don't have to know what the square root of 1,223,403,453 is to know that the answer isn't "a banana."

Okay, let's amend Caleb's statement.

"...whenever there is an unexplained phenomenon and someone presents a logically-possible explanation, those who doubt the explanation ought to at least considerthe possibility and temper their criticism until such time as they are able to present an alternative explanation."

Note "logically-possible."  This has nothing to do with physics.  If the question is "how was the universe created?" and Caleb says "God created the universe," then it is logically possible, inasmuch as his statement describes an act of creation resulting in the universe.

So we can ignore things like the square root of some number being a piece of fruit, inasmuch as the square root of a number will always be a number, and numbers are not fruit.

So, can you respond to this amended statement?

It isn't, of course, anything binding... just a matter of politeness, along the lines of not telling someone he's putting his roof on wrong, unless you are willing to tell him the correct way.

Joe

[Braddogg]

There is a certain line of thinking that says that whenever there is an unexplained phenomenon and someone presents an explanation, those who doubt the explanation ought to at least considerthe possibility and temper their criticism until such time as they are able to present an alternative explanation.

...

What's my alternative explanation to how the universe is created?  I don't have one.  I don't have to have one to know that yours isn't right.  I don't have to know what the square root of 1,223,403,453 is to know that the answer isn't "a banana."

Okay, let's amend Caleb's statement.

"...whenever there is an unexplained phenomenon and someone presents a logically-possible explanation, those who doubt the explanation ought to at least considerthe possibility and temper their criticism until such time as they are able to present an alternative explanation."

Note "logically-possible."  This has nothing to do with physics.  If the question is "how was the universe created?" and Caleb says "God created the universe," then it is logically possible, inasmuch as his statement describes an act of creation resulting in the universe.

So we can ignore things like the square root of some number being a piece of fruit, inasmuch as the square root of a number will always be a number, and numbers are not fruit.

So, can you respond to this amended statement?

It isn't, of course, anything binding... just a matter of politeness, along the lines of not telling someone he's putting his roof on wrong, unless you are willing to tell him the correct way.

Joe

Okay, taking your amendment I still think the comparison between "God created the universe" and "The square root of 2,343,634 is 'a banana'" holds.  Where is the logic in saying God created the universe?  How can that possibly be logically understood?  Here's my reasoning. 

Must everything in this dimension have been created?  If not, then there is no need for a God Creation Hypothesis; if so, then if God exists in this dimension, then he, too, must have been created.  If you say God exists outside this dimension, that is a total non-answer and is illogical (or "a-logical"), because for something to be logical it must conform with reality (think about the Three Laws of Logic: They all derive from observable reality).  We do not know anything about these other dimensions, so it is impossible to tell if the God Hypothesis conforms to the reality of those other dimensions.

I still think it's okay to criticize without a solution.  I don't know what kinds of material is used to build a roof.  But if I see my neighbor nailing slices of watermelon to his roof, I think I'd be justified in saying, "Look, I don't know what kind of material you need to do this whole roof-building-thing, but you may want to reconsider your use of watermelons."  I think that conforms with neighborly niceness (and +1 to you for stressing that it's not a question of binding morals, but of politeness!).

[MaineShark]

Okay, taking your amendment I still think the comparison between "God created the universe" and "The square root of 2,343,634 is 'a banana'" holds.  Where is the logic in saying God created the universe?  How can that possibly be logically understood?  Here's my reasoning. 

Must everything in this dimension have been created?  If not, then there is no need for a God Creation Hypothesis; if so, then if God exists in this dimension, then he, too, must have been created.  If you say God exists outside this dimension, that is a total non-answer and is illogical (or "a-logical"), because for something to be logical it must conform with reality (think about the Three Laws of Logic: They all derive from observable reality).  We do not know anything about these other dimensions, so it is impossible to tell if the God Hypothesis conforms to the reality of those other dimensions.

That doesn't relate to Caleb's question or my amendment, as a comparison.

Logic is logic, and a statement can be logical even if it is untrue, simply by the GIGO principle.  You don't have to agree with a logical statement, but don't call it illogical.

I still think it's okay to criticize without a solution.  I don't know what kinds of material is used to build a roof.  But if I see my neighbor nailing slices of watermelon to his roof, I think I'd be justified in saying, "Look, I don't know what kind of material you need to do this whole roof-building-thing, but you may want to reconsider your use of watermelons."  I think that conforms with neighborly niceness (and +1 to you for stressing that it's not a question of binding morals, but of politeness!).

If you don't know what kind of materials are used to build roofs, how do you know that watermelons are not?

Joe

[eques]

Nobody that I'm aware of has been able to set up an experiment to show the direct or indirect effects of God."

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7327/1450

Any claims about God based on that study are unwarranted extrapolations.  Furthermore, the slightly better results in the intercessory group do not appear to be statistically significant.

Also note that there have been other studies to date showing either a null effect or a negative effect regarding intercessory prayer.

Based on the facts, it is entirely inconclusive that prayer actually does anything to assist in the healing process.

Note that this does not say one whit about God.

Anyway, it hardly matters.  If a study shows a positive result, Godfolk will go around, praising cheeses, patting each other on the back and making funny faces at non-Godfolk and Godfolk not of their particular stripe.  If a study shows a neutral or negative result, Godfolk will say that maybe the intercessors didn't have enough faith or that God refuses to be tested in that way.

All too often, it's the same person who will hand-wave his way through all of the above.

[eques]

Also note that there have been other studies to date showing either a null effect or a negative effect regarding intercessory prayer.

Yes, I know. But unlike many others, this study was unusually well designed.

Dude...

From the abstract:

Intervention: In July 2000 patients were randomised to a control group and an intervention group. A remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was said for the well being and full recovery of the intervention group.

How can you possibly take this seriously?  Retroactive intercessory prayer?

I don't care how "unusually well-designed" this study was--the premise is absurd.

If you go on to read the comments (Rapid Responses) linked to the article, you can see that a number of people have questions and criticisms regarding the methodology.  There are at least two individuals who claim to believe in God that have serious reservations about the study in question.

In any case, you know as well as I do that a single study means bupkus, especially when taking all the other studies that have been done into consideration.

And as far as your snarky comment that I ought to take a statistics refresher, I remember enough about statistics to know that this:

	Minimum	Lower quartile	Median	Upper quartile	Maximum	P
Stay in hospital:
Intervention	0	4	7	13	165	0.01
Control	0	4	8	16	320
Duration of fever:
Intervention	0	1	2	4	49	0.04
Control	0	1	2	5	50

just looks fishy.

I'm not the only person who would like to see the data set.

[MaineShark]

How can you possibly take this seriously?  Retroactive intercessory prayer?

I don't care how "unusually well-designed" this study was--the premise is absurd.

Not that I believe this particular study is meaningful, but...

Many victim disarmament advocates think the idea of guns saving lives is "absurd."  Some have done research to prove themselves right.  A few have had the intellectual honesty to do the studies in a scientifically-rigorous fashion, and to let the results change their entire lives, often dedicating themselves to ending the very thing they originally intended to provide support for.

If a sufficiently-large study was done, with sufficient controls, then the results have to stand on their own, regardless of the "absurdity" one might think applies.

Joe

[eques]

Not that I believe this particular study is meaningful, but...

Many victim disarmament advocates think the idea of guns saving lives is "absurd."  Some have done research to prove themselves right.  A few have had the intellectual honesty to do the studies in a scientifically-rigorous fashion, and to let the results change their entire lives, often dedicating themselves to ending the very thing they originally intended to provide support for.

Oh, come on, Joe.  There are "absurdities," and then there are absurdities.  You're talking about qualitatively different spheres of effect here.  Point being, owning a gun may save my life if I know how to use it, and also if I'm a little lucky.  Can one truly make any definitive claim about belief in God instead of a bunch of amorphous, hand-wavy assertions?  (I am biased here, of course, because my belief in God nearly cost me my life.)

Furthermore, I don't know if you're implying that I am intellectually dishonest.  The greater share of intellectual dishonesty has been on the part of the researchers by far.

If a sufficiently-large study was done, with sufficient controls, then the results have to stand on their own, regardless of the "absurdity" one might think applies.

In any case, a truly well-constructed study isn't likely to happen for humans considering that some methods which could truly help to balance the results might not be considered ethical (e.g., praying for a negative result, or praying in lieu of medical treatment, for example).

I'm sure this has been suggested before, somewhere, but perhaps they ought to conduct studies wherein people pray for lab rats.  That would certainly reduce one of the criticisms of most of these studies, wherein there's really very little control over whether the non-intervention group has members that are being prayed for.

But, despite all of the energy I've put into this so far, I've got no desire to conduct such a fundamentally useless study.

[error]

You believe in luck? How absurd. That's like believing in God.