BDS

Well, Wayne, we know already that not all priests can heal all deaf and blind people, so Wyrd's silly experiment wouldn't tell us anything new. If Mark 16:18 is refuted any time that the sick are NOT healed, it's been refuted many times over already. Mark 11 seems more metaphorical than literal to me, and probably refers to future rewards in heaven.

Neither of the passages you mention make "specific promises" that are refuted by the occasional failure of priests to give sight to the blind, in my humble opinion.

An experiment is based on a logical construct. Experiments don't "prove" anything, they only disprove things. So, yes, I think Wyrd is making a logical error in the construction of his experiment in that he seems to say, if the blind are not healed, that disproves the existance of God.

It doesn't. The ONLY thing the experiment could disprove is the "null hypothesis", which is that praying has no more efficacy than a placebo. It still wouldn't prove the existance of God. There could be any number of correlary factors that led to the restoration of sight. It could also FAIL to disprove the null hypothesis, which would hardly disprove the existence of God.

Wyrdsmyth

BDS,

I think you misunderstand the argument. It is not a deductive argument, where the conclusion absolutely disproves the existence of god(s). It is an inductive, probabilistic argument. It is a conclusion about ascertaining plausibility and implausibility. And, as others have pointed out, it doesn't work if you are going to assume divine intervention is indistinguishable from natural occurrences. But, if there is no statistically significant variation from 'miraculous' cures and healings, and those that occur 'naturally' with no religious claims attached to them, I am also asking: well, what's the difference? And, if both possibilities are going to be considered equally 'real,' then we can still ask, which is more plausible? So, I can be wrong. But the argument itself isn't illogical. Also, I would further modify the OP now in light of other objections raised. The same test can't be applied to every single religious tradition, since not all religions make the same claims to what they can perform. So, they have to be evaluated in the light of their claims.

Note also, that if you're going to say that my test is 'unfair,' then so was Elijah's claim to the followers of Baal. The same defense can be applied to Baal: he is not a performing monkey, who does miracles on command. And so, Elijah's 'victory' must then be considered meaningless and illogical. But obviously, that story was written to show that the god of Abraham is real and Baal isn't. So, really, my entire test is only an extrapolation on the same reasoning that was used with the Baal story. What is the most plausible explanation, that Baal just didn't feel like performing, or he just isn't really there at all? It's about plausibility. But, now, I'm just turning it around to level challenges to all divine claims -- including those about the Judeo-Christian god.

Wayne Delia

Apparently so. That's why I withhold belief in gods in general, and Christianity in particular: the promises of supernatural abilities are never demonstrated; all we get is a variety of excuses why the promised abilities don't work.

Mark 11 seems more metaphorical than literal to me, and probably refers to future rewards in heaven.

That is ridiculous. Mark 11:22-24 (NIV) says "'Have faith in God,' Jesus answered. 'I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, "Go, throw yourself into the sea," and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.'" There's nothing metaphorical at all about it. Jesus offers no loopholes that specify you've got to be dead and in heaven for it to work, and He is quite explicit about the real-world action of mountain-moving. That's about as literal as you could expect. If Jesus was speaking figuratively, it was disingenuous (and dishonest) of Him to preface the promise in Mark 11:22-24 with "I tell you the truth."

Neither of the passages you mention make "specific promises" that are refuted by the occasional failure of priests to give sight to the blind, in my humble opinion.

In my humble opinion, you are wrong. Mark 11:22-24 specifically promises that anything asked for in prayer will be delivered, if the person has enough faith to be able to sufficiently convince (or delude) himself that he will actually get it. Mark 16:17-18 outlines specific abilities that would be characteristics of Christians, to distinguish themselves as such by demonstrating the power of their faith. Those specific abilities are serpent-handling, poison-drinking, faith-healing, tongues-speaking, and demon-removing. No conditions are given as exceptions to when those abilities would not be effective.

An experiment is based on a logical construct. Experiments don't "prove" anything, they only disprove things.

Exactly. Mark 11:22-24 is disproved by the failure of a Christian to receive what is prayed for in faith. Mark 16:17-18 is disproved by a Christian being unable to cure AIDS, drink H2SO4, or handle venomous, potent rattlesnakes by the tail for a half hour.

So, yes, I think Wyrd is making a logical error in the construction of his experiment in that he seems to say, if the blind are not healed, that disproves the existance of God.

After further review (as they say in the NFL), it appears you are correct. S/he did arrive at that conclusion, which would be a logical fallacy as it does not follow from the premises. There are other equally logically possible alternatives not refuted by the failure of the demonstrations:

1) God exists, but is a lying sack of sh*t.
2) God exists, but Jesus isn't God, and Jesus misstated what could be done by praying to God.
3) God exists, but is not powerful enough to support what Jesus promised.
4) God exists, and can carry out what Jesus promised, but due to a malicious, capricious nature, never actually does it.
5) Jesus was speaking entirely metaphorically, which was changed into something with more "pizzazz" by the Gospel authors who were trying to persuade more converts.

It doesn't. The ONLY thing the experiment could disprove is the "null hypothesis", which is that praying has no more efficacy than a placebo.

No, the "null hypothesis" would not be disproved. The apparently consistent failure of Christians to demonstrate their abilities would disprove the claims made in the Bible, and consequently disproving Biblical inerrancy.

It still wouldn't prove the existance of God.

One difference is that it would not be evidence in favor of the existence of God, but it would be evidence in favor (not conclusive proof, though) of the non-existence of God.

There could be any number of correlary factors that led to the restoration of sight.

The problem is, though, that you are assuming your own conclusion - that the sight was actually restored. That's not necessarily the case, which could be covered by my point #5 above.

It could also FAIL to disprove the null hypothesis, which would hardly disprove the existence of God.

Are you sure you know what the "null hypothesis" refers to? The positive assertion is "God promises supernatural abilities to Christians." That's not a "null hypothesis."

WMD

BDS

Wayne, ol' Chap, you are falling into the same illogical swamp into which Wyrd has wandered.

Wayne quotes, "Mark 11:22-24 (NIV) says "'Have faith in God,' Jesus answered. 'I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, "Go, throw yourself into the sea," and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.'"

But, of course, the mountain WILL throw itself into the sea, eventually. That is, it will erode away and return to the sea from whence it came. So to the Christian, when Jesus turns water into wine at the Wedding at Canna, He is doing no more than God does EVERY time we make wine. The specific miracle at Canna is, in a sense, no different from the every day miracle of water falling on the earth, and feeding the vines, and grapes growing, and humans (another of God's miracles) picking and fermenting the grapes into wine.

Undoubtedly Jesus (like everyone else) knew darned well that one didn't receive everything one prayed for. So what did He mean? If one prays for eternal life, dos one receive it, even though one dies? Well, I don't know the answer to that one, and neither does Wayne, but for Wayne to assume that Jesus meant the mountain would IMMEDIATELY pick itself up and hurl itself into the sea is unreasonable. Besides, I'm sure Jesus knew that perfect faith is impossible, so it may have been a trick statement. Or possibly perfect faith is ONLY possible when the truth one has faith in is ACTUALLY true. Perfect faith in a lie wouldn't be very perfect, would it?

As far as Mark 16, the claim that it has been "disproved" is incorrect. How does Wayne know who "has believed" and who has not? The only way Wayne could disprove it, is if Wayne was a mind reader, and could know for certain who believed and who didn't.

The Null Hypothesis in Wyrd's experiment would be, "There is no difference between prayer and a placebo in healing the blind." With sufficient controls, and enough participants, this could be disproven by Wyrd's experiment. We could then claim, "There is a difference between prayer and a placebo", although we wouldn't know for sure what the difference consists of.

p.s. I'm sure Christians (which I am not) could come up with better rebuttals than I can to Wayne's arguments, since I'm sure they've heard them before.

Wayne Delia

You are addressing me directly in the first person.

Wayne quotes, "Mark 11:22-24 (NIV) says "'Have faith in God,' Jesus answered. 'I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, "Go, throw yourself into the sea," and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.'"

That's odd. You've now switched to addressing me indirectly in the third person. Did you forget who you were talking to?

But, of course, the mountain WILL throw itself into the sea, eventually. That is, it will erode away and return to the sea from whence it came.

If I were a Christian, I would be greatly disappointed that Jesus was involved in false advertising and the deceptive "bait-and-switch" technique.

So to the Christian, when Jesus turns water into wine at the Wedding at Canna, He is doing no more than God does EVERY time we make wine.

I am aware of no winery that produces wine from only water. Producing wine from the usual processes and recipes hardly qualifies as a miracle. In any case, this appears to be an attempt to evade the issue. Also, it's correctly spelled "Cana".

The specific miracle at Canna is, in a sense, no different from the every day miracle of water falling on the earth, and feeding the vines, and grapes growing, and humans (another of God's miracles) picking and fermenting the grapes into wine.

It is entirely different. The description of the wedding feast at Cana involved Jesus allegedly turning water directly into wine immediately, requiring no intermediate steps of rainfall, cultivation, harvesting, and manual production of wine - none of which qualify as miraculous. In fact, they are quite mundane and routine events and procedures which are relatively well understood by various branches of science.

Undoubtedly Jesus (like everyone else) knew darned well that one didn't receive everything one prayed for.

It's a shame, then, that He was quoted as saying that one DOES receive anything one prays for in Mark 11:22-24 under certain conditions of having faith.

So what did He mean?

The only thing I can think of is a paraphrase of a classic line from National Lampoon's Animal House: "You fucked up. You trusted Me."

If one prays for eternal life, dos one receive it, even though one dies?

Apparently not. We have no evidence that life of any kind carries on after physical death. But you don't have to be such a drama queen. The spectrum of things prayed for that Jesus talked about in Mark 11:22-24 included anything in this life, such as the ability to move mountains into the lakes.

Well, I don't know the answer to that one, and neither does Wayne,

Exactly who are you talking to? With no evidence to suggest any life after death, much less an eternal life, why should anyone assume there is one?

but for Wayne to assume that Jesus meant the mountain would IMMEDIATELY pick itself up and hurl itself into the sea is unreasonable.

Of course - I suppose it was entirely unreasonable for me to expect that Jesus meant what He was quoted as saying. Of all the other sayings of Jesus in the Gospels, how does one go about determining whether it is to be taken as true, or if Jesus took that opportunity of bullshitting us, as He apparently did in Mark 11:22-24?

Besides, I'm sure Jesus knew that perfect faith is impossible, so it may have been a trick statement.

Especially since Jesus didn't mention the loophole that nobody qualified for the abilities He was promising. Funny thing, too, that Jesus didn't require perfect faith at all, but rather only that the petitioner had no doubts whatsoever. In this sense, Jesus was evidently promising this super-power only to those who were gullible enough to completely delude themselves that they were getting what they were asking for.

Or possibly perfect faith is ONLY possible when the truth one has faith in is ACTUALLY true. Perfect faith in a lie wouldn't be very perfect, would it?

Do you have any idea what message you are conveying? The promise Jesus made of "you get anything you pray for" in Mark 11:22-24 doesn't work because Christianity is a lie?

As far as Mark 16, the claim that it has been "disproved" is incorrect.

Not so: it only takes one white crow to disprove the assertion that all crows are black. Similarly, it only takes one follower of Jesus who cannot perform the abilities He promised to refute the validity of the promise.

The alternative, though, is even more damning and embarrassing: apparently nobody qualifies as a Christian who is able to carry out those abilities, which says very little about the sincerity of people who claim to be Christian.

How does Wayne know who "has believed" and who has not?

Beats me. It's not my positive claim to prove. Ironic, isn't it, that so many people will loudly proclaim their Christian faith, but when it comes time to demonstrate the power of their faith through what Jesus promised would distinguish them as Christians in Mark 16:17-18, all we get is "Nobody in here but us chickens!"

The only way Wayne could disprove it, is if Wayne was a mind reader, and could know for certain who believed and who didn't.

Or, we could simply get the positive claimant to produce someone, anyone, whom he felt qualified as a Christian, a follower of Jesus - perhaps himself, if he thought he was a Christian - and go through a simple demonstration of the abilities. If failure of those abilities was an indication that the person was not a true Christian to begin with, we would be waiting an incredibly long time before we found an actual Christian who was able to survive, much less demonstrate, the abilities. That's functionally equivalent to the positive claim that "the abilities Jesus promised in Mark 16:17-18 don't work."

The Null Hypothesis in Wyrd's experiment would be, "There is no difference between prayer and a placebo in healing the blind."

Exactly. That's the way it is, and that's very difficult to disprove, which you seem to think it can be disproven.

With sufficient controls, and enough participants, this could be disproven by Wyrd's experiment.

Go for it! I'd seriously be interested in the design of your experiment. And if it works, you could apply for James Randi's million-plus dollar prize for evidence of paranormal activity.

We could then claim, "There is a difference between prayer and a placebo", although we wouldn't know for sure what the difference consists of.

If that's the outcome, then your controls weren't nearly as sufficient as you thought they were. The controls are supposed to shield the experimental results from other influences.

p.s. I'm sure Christians (which I am not) could come up with better rebuttals than I can to Wayne's arguments, since I'm sure they've heard them before.

Your attempted rebuttal wasn't too particularly good, I'm afraid. Many of the standard Christian apologetics involve alibis about why God won't make good on the promises Jesus made - something about "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God," which I suppose is an excuse I could use to claim, for example, that I'm omnipotent - I just refuse to demonstrate it.

WMD

BDS

Wayne, you are grasping at straws. What is wrong with a quick comment directly to you, and then a switch to the third person to talk in more general terms about your post? Why complain? Why is this "odd"? Even if it is odd, isn't complaining about it a little picky?

If we are going to start complaining about each other's posting styles, here's my complaint: the "point/counterpoint" tactics with which you criticize my post make you seem like a chihuahua, yapping at my heels. Don't you ever have any ideas of your own?

Furthermore (to revert to the third person, having given up on talking to Wayne), Wayne's yapping is mere silliness. He continually accuses me of saying things I never said, and believing things I don't believe. This is particularly silly, given that he quotes my post line by line.

For example: Wayne complains, "Producing wine from the usual processes and recipes hardly qualifies as a miracle." Apparently Wayne was unable to comprehend my point. Perhaps he'll listen to Walt Whitman:

"Why, who makes much of a miracle?
As to me, I know of nothing else but miracles,
Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan,
Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,
Or wade with naked feet along the beach just in the edge of the water,
Or stand under trees in the woods,
Or talk by day with anyone I love, or sleep in the bed at night with anyone I love,
Or sit at table at dinner with the rest,
Or look at strangers opposite me riding in the car,
Or watch honey bees busy around the hive of a summer forenoon,
Or animals feeding in the fields,
Or birds, or the wonderfulness of insects in the air,
Or the wonderfulness of the sundown, or of stars shining so quiet and bright,
Or the exquisite delicate thin curve of the new moon in spring;
These with the rest, one and all, are to me miracles,
The whole referring, yet each distinct and in its place.

To me every hour of the light and dark is a miracle,
Every cubic inch of space is a miracle,
Every square yard of the surface of the earth is spread with the same,
Every foot of the interior swarms with the same.

To me the sea is a continual miracle,
The fishes that swim--the rocks--the motion of the waves--the ships with the men in them,
What stranger miracles are there?"

Also, Wayne apparently misunderstands my analysis of Wyrd's experiment. I don't think the experiment WOULD demonstrate a difference between prayer and a placebo, I think it COULD (in the extremely unlikely event that the results showed such a difference).

Christians, like the rest of us, are imperfect and their faith is imperfect, so it is hardly surprising that they cannot handle snakes or remove mountains. Still, it is not the Christians who need an able apologist in this thread -- its the atheists. I'd better switch sides.

Wayne Delia

Not at all. Your point is confusing, and your intentional switch of conversational direction makes it even more confusing.

If we are going to start complaining about each other's posting styles, here's my complaint: the "point/counterpoint" tactics with which you criticize my post make you seem like a chihuahua, yapping at my heels.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but there's a clear difference: I am speaking to you in a consistent manner, where you appear to be alternately addressing me and pontificating to an audience. Your argument does not stand up to a critical analysis piece by piece, so taken as a whole, there's no reason to expect it would be any better clumped together. That style, though, would make it much easier for you to run away from tough questions you would prefer not to answer.

Don't you ever have any ideas of your own?

Of course. Many of them you were unable or unwilling to respond to. Which of the ideas do you think I was parrotting, and why were you unable to refute them?

Furthermore (to revert to the third person, having given up on talking to Wayne),

Who is it you think you're addressing, and what caused you to give up on answering my objections?

Wayne's yapping is mere silliness.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

He continually accuses me of saying things I never said, and believing things I don't believe.

For example? Anything? I've reviewed the previous two posts, and have found nothing even going near trying to misrepresent any position of yours.

This is particularly silly, given that he quotes my post line by line.

Even sillier is you being unable to find even a single actual example of what you're talking about, given that you seem to think I "continually" do it.

For example: Wayne complains, "Producing wine from the usual processes and recipes hardly qualifies as a miracle." Apparently Wayne was unable to comprehend my point.

That was in direct response to your equating the miracle of Jesus creating wine at Cana with the normal procedures involved in the production of wine. You haven't established your point by any reasoning whatsoever, apart from mere assertion.

Also, you have failed to show how my remark qualifies as reporting you as "saying things [you] never said, and believing things [you] don't believe," which seemed to be your major complaint.

Perhaps he'll listen to Walt Whitman:

"Why, who makes much of a miracle?
As to me, I know of nothing else but miracles,
Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan,
Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,
Or wade with naked feet along the beach just in the edge of the water,
Or stand under trees in the woods,
Or talk by day with anyone I love, or sleep in the bed at night with anyone I love,
Or sit at table at dinner with the rest,
Or look at strangers opposite me riding in the car,
Or watch honey bees busy around the hive of a summer forenoon,
Or animals feeding in the fields,
Or birds, or the wonderfulness of insects in the air,
Or the wonderfulness of the sundown, or of stars shining so quiet and bright,
Or the exquisite delicate thin curve of the new moon in spring;
These with the rest, one and all, are to me miracles,
The whole referring, yet each distinct and in its place.

To me every hour of the light and dark is a miracle,
Every cubic inch of space is a miracle,
Every square yard of the surface of the earth is spread with the same,
Every foot of the interior swarms with the same.

To me the sea is a continual miracle,
The fishes that swim--the rocks--the motion of the waves--the ships with the men in them,
What stranger miracles are there?"

Whitman, poetically, is making the same mistake you're making, somewhat less than poetically. You're characterizing everything as a miracle, which sorely strains the definition and cheapens the unique meaning of the word. If everything can have "miracle" attached to its description, then the word becomes completely useless and redundant. Just because someone says "Everything is a miracle" doesn't make everything miraculous.

Also, Wayne apparently misunderstands my analysis of Wyrd's experiment. I don't think the experiment WOULD demonstrate a difference between prayer and a placebo, I think it COULD (in the extremely unlikely event that the results showed such a difference).

But speculating on what "COULD" happen has nothing to do with addressing the reality that the Christian assertion of special magical superpowers promised in Mark 16:17-18, or their access to anything they ask for if they convince themselves strongly enough that they will (eventually?) get it, as promised in Mark 11:22-24, simply doesn't work. What "COULD" happen is a big pile of corpses of Christians who volunteered to demonstrate and failed, with maybe one or two very sick survivors. If Jesus's promise in Mark 16:17-18 is to be believed, then everyone believing in Him not only should survive drinking H2SO4, for example, they should not be affected at all. Bottom line: it doesn't work. It fails in a big way.

Christians, like the rest of us, are imperfect and their faith is imperfect, so it is hardly surprising that they cannot handle snakes or remove mountains.

This was previously pointed out to you: Jesus did not claim to require "perfect" faith. He just said to be strongly convinced that what one prays for would be delivered. If the self-delusion is strong enough, I guess, then the victim - er, the Christian - will convince himself that it works. The problem occurs when the Christian tries to convince others of the same thing.

Still, it is not the Christians who need an able apologist in this thread -- its the atheists.

Exactly why? You're fond of throwing out assertions with utterly no support, explanation, or evidence. What you need to do here is explain exactly what concepts require an apologist among the atheists. The only defining principle of atheism is a withholding of belief in gods of any kind. I withhold that belief, based in large part on the inability of those who make supernatural theistic claims to support them with any demonstration at all, particularly the Christians with regard to Mark 16:17-18. Why do I need an apologist to rationalize my lack of belief?

I'd better switch sides.

You aren't even able to identify which side you're currently on, so pardon me if I am not too concerned with that remark at all.

WMD

BDS

Yap! Yap! Yap!

I AM alternately addressing you and pontificating. 2 points to Wayne for firguring that out.

Unfortunately, the yapping continues. So far, every post I've written on this thread has been quoted in its entirety by Wayne. I know my posts are good (and thanks, Wayne) but even I am getting sick of reading them.

Unfortunately, even though my posts hve all been repeated twice, Wayne seems unable to understand them. At the risk of mimicking Wayne's cut and criticize style, here's Wayne at his most grandiloquently absurd:

"Whitman, poetically, is making the same mistake you're making, somewhat less than poetically. You're characterizing everything as a miracle, which sorely strains the definition and cheapens the unique meaning of the word."

Oh. Yap, yap, yap, to you, too. Wayne sure is a literal-minded chap. None of these metaphors, or double meanings for ol' Wayne. Where Walt Whitman (poor, deluded soul) might have thought he was making a "poem", Wayne is here to point out that, instead, he was making a "mistake".

At least that's clear, thank goodness.

Hawkingfan

Then the act of prayer would have nothing to do with it. It would be a pretty superfluous act of praying for a mountain to move millions of years from now for no apparent reason, especially if it's going to move on it's own anyway. Do you see into the future some need for a specific mountain to move? I'm sure future societies would be thankful.
But thanks for showing us how a confirmation bias works-- Step One: be certain that outcome X will eventually happen naturally. Step Two: pray that it will happen with oh-so-much "faith". Step Three: when it does happen naturally say, "See, a miracle!"
By the way, not all mountains came from the sea.

Hawkingfan

It's actually more unreasonable to suggest you have the power to move the mountain millions of years into the future "supernaturally" once your dead (and if we didn't know your little trick). Besides, Jesus thought it was reasonable for a fig tree to wither immediately at his (and Christians) command:

Matthew 21:
18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
20When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.
21Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

So if moving an entire mountain millions of years into the future is do-able, then making a fig tree wither immediately should be cake. Note how Jesus said you could do it ("what was done to the fig tree"). But I bet you couldn't command a grain of sand to move two inches into a glob of spit.