Hawkingfan

Oh, the irony!

Wyrdsmyth

Perhaps you're new to online discussions, but that is pretty standard etiquette. It also clarifies exactly what point one is responding to.

So, how is that a reason to not perform the experiment? How does speculating about 'would' happen before the experiment is even performed make the experiment invalid or illogical?

Don't flatter yourself. And, incidentally, this isn't about sides, this is not a "Christians versus Atheists" forum. If you see an argument you disagree with or think is flawed, by all means, point out the flaw -- regardless of which 'side' it is on. But your melodramatic condescension is starting to wear thin. How about some less quoting of Whitman, and some more specific replies on your part? Go ahead and yap at my heels. I don't care. In fact, I invite you to do so. It will only more clearly reveal that your criticisms of my argument have no teeth.

Wayne Delia

Yadda yadda yadda.

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

What's the point? Seriously, what point do you think you are making? And whom do you think you are convincing with your pontificating? Have you persuaded anyone?

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.

I don't blame you for getting sick of reading them, because they aren't nearly as good as you think. You've failed to respond to all but one point I raised, and your single response below is quite the combination of non-sequitur and ad hominem.

Unfortunately, even though my posts hve all been repeated twice, Wayne seems unable to understand them.

It's a poor communicator indeed who attempts to blame his audience for not being able to understand him. For about the fifth time, exactly what is your point?

At the risk of mimicking Wayne's cut and criticize style, here's Wayne at his most grandiloquently absurd:

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

"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.

Once again, you have abruptly changed from referring to me directly to referring to me in the third person in consecutive sentences. Is English not your primary language?

None of these metaphors, or double meanings for ol' Wayne.

You're trying to make an analogy of Whitman's poem to what Jesus promised in Mark 11:22-24 and Mark 16:17-18. Since when is "You will get anything you pray for" supposed to be a metaphor for "You will not necessarily get anything you pray for?" How is that any different from standard false advertising or bait-and-switch technique?

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".

You claimed that Jesus making wine out of water at Cana was essentially the same as the miracle of the normal wine-making process we use today, and you tried to use Whitman's reasoning that everything qualifies as a miracle as your support. In that case, then yes, he is making the same mistake you are, for the same reasons I pointed out in my previous post, which you were unwilling, unable, or afraid to answer.

At least that's clear, thank goodness.

I don't underestimate your ability to attempt to avoid these criticisms of your argument. You're not doing a very good job of it, though. Is there someone else there we could talk to?

WMD

BDS

To Wayne, Wyrd, et.al.,

The "etiquette" of line by line responses to a post is one that should be scrapped. Here's why:

1) It removes the original posters sentences from their context, so that often the responder is arguing against a straw man.

2) It makes the responder's post utterly "responsive" -- in other words, he never says anything new (and only rarely anything interesting).

3) It's annoying to be yapped at in this way, just like it's annoying to be yapped at by a chihuahua, regardless of whether one's interlocutor makes any sense or not.

As far as Wyrd's suggestion that I quote Whitman less often, and argue more often -- wherefore your name? Surely Whitman poems make for more interesting reading than anything else in this silly thread, don't they?

To Wayne (In the second person): I admit that my communication skills may be to blame for your lack of understanding, but are Whitman's? By all reports, he communicated pretty well. I believe, Wayne, that you COULD understand me, but want to argue against someone else (who, I wonder?). Why use your point/counterpoint technique, when you're not even arguing with me? I accuse you of yapping not because I think you're wrong, but because most of what you say is irrelevent to anything I've said, and it's all as obvious as a dog's bark.

For example, I said the miracle at Cana was the same as the miracle of everyday wine making "in a sense". Instead of trying to figure out what that sense is, Wayne, you try to figure out senses in which it is NOT the same. So what? I fully admit that it's not the same in a great many senses. Almost every argument you make suffers from the same kind of error. You know exactly what argument you want to make, and nothing I say will make you change it. So why not just talk to yourself? I haven't bothered responding to most of what you say because there's no point: you don't listen anyway.

To Hawkingfan: If everything that ever has happened or ever will happen is predetermined by the will of God (hypothetically, Wayne, no need to go balistic), then everything is "caused" by that will. That means that prayer is also caused by God's will, and that a faithful person would pray to send a mountain crashing into the sea only if God wanted him to. And God would only want him to if his prayer would be answered. This is only one hypothetical scenario explaining the passages.

Of course you're right that in a scientific experiment, "cause" generally means "that handle which we are manipulating", so if there was no difference between prayer and non-prayer, prayer would not be considered the "cause" (in this sense).

Wayne Delia

It won't be. It's very much a standard on these boards, on Usenet, and just about any other discussion board.

Here's why:

1) It removes the original posters sentences from their context, so that often the responder is arguing against a straw man.

Show me *one* statement of yours which I've taken out of context, or have constructed a strawman from. Anything? Anything at all? If your individual statements are shredded, what hope do you have of improvement by stringing them all together? Your hope is, in fact, that your mistakes will be glossed over. You're outta luck - that isn't going to happen.

2) It makes the responder's post utterly "responsive" -- in other words, he never says anything new (and only rarely anything interesting).

Well, it's not unreasonable for a response to be "responsive". I have retained your comments for proper context, in order to show exactly what I am refuting. You aren't clear what you are referring to by "never says anything new," unless you are under the mistaken impression that my response consists of nothing more than what you have already written.

3) It's annoying to be yapped at in this way, just like it's annoying to be yapped at by a chihuahua, regardless of whether one's interlocutor makes any sense or not.

Then perhaps this message board is too rough for your sensitivities. Correspondingly, it is annoying when you fail to respond to criticisms of your position, as you proceed to do in this post.

As far as Wyrd's suggestion that I quote Whitman less often, and argue more often -- wherefore your name?

Wherefore your non-sequitur?

Surely Whitman poems make for more interesting reading than anything else in this silly thread, don't they?

The problem is, we are not discussing whether Whitman writes interesting poems. We are discussing whether everything qualifies as a miracle, as you asserted in the example of the wedding feast at Cana, for which you tried to use a Whitman poem as support. Simply calling everything a miracle does not make everything miraculous.

To Wayne (In the second person): I admit that my communication skills may be to blame for your lack of understanding, but are Whitman's?

Of course not. He wrote a poem in which he indicated everything is a miracle to him. That's all well and good for him to believe, but it does not make it universally true.

By all reports, he communicated pretty well.

The question is not how well Whitman communicates. The question is whether his assertion adequately supports your proposition that everything qualifies as a miracle.

I believe, Wayne, that you COULD understand me, but want to argue against someone else (who, I wonder?).

Your argument is poor enough for my criticism. Instead of complaining about it, why not address the criticism?

Why use your point/counterpoint technique, when you're not even arguing with me?

Admittedly, it is difficult to argue with you when you refuse to back up your assertions or respond to criticism. But this is an amusing evasive technique: "You must be arguing with someone else. Go argue with someone else."

I accuse you of yapping not because I think you're wrong, but because most of what you say is irrelevent to anything I've said, and it's all as obvious as a dog's bark.

You're spending too much time describing how obvious it is, but you haven't given a single example of how anything I've said would be irrelevant. For example, you offered the Whitman poem in support of your ill-advised assertion that everything qualifies as a miracle, and you were refuted when I pointed out that all you've done is found someone who, if applied to your argument, is making the same mistake you are. If, indeed, everything is miraculous, then the distinctive term "miracle" is entirely unnecessary.

For example, I said the miracle at Cana was the same as the miracle of everyday wine making "in a sense".

Perhaps in the sense of taking some sort of hallucinogenic drug, sure. But the whole story was supposed to be a tale of Jesus's supernatural powers, which has little or nothing to do with the normal production of wine.

Instead of trying to figure out what that sense is, Wayne, you try to figure out senses in which it is NOT the same. So what?

It is NOT the same in so many significant areas that it renders your analogy completely invalid. Jesus wasn't described as using any raw materials or ingredients other than water, no wine-producing equipment, no fermentation, no storage, distribution, packaging, or marketing. So, your analogy is invalid.

I fully admit that it's not the same in a great many senses. Almost every argument you make suffers from the same kind of error.

Just not in any way you can point out.

You know exactly what argument you want to make, and nothing I say will make you change it.

The argument is more than sufficient to refute your position.

So why not just talk to yourself? I haven't bothered responding to most of what you say because there's no point: you don't listen anyway.

Oh, I listen fine; in fact, you just got through crying over the fact that I respond to every sentence you write. The problem is you don't bother responding to most of what I say because you can't.

To Hawkingfan: If everything that ever has happened or ever will happen is predetermined by the will of God (hypothetically, Wayne, no need to go balistic),

That's spelled "ballistic," and I've given no indication that I would "go ballistic" over this argument. To demonstrate that omniscience and free will are incompatible, it is necessary to assume (for the sake of argument) that either one of them is in effect, which leads to a logical refutation of the other. I have no problem discussing that from a hypothetical standpoint.

then everything is "caused" by that will. That means that prayer is also caused by God's will, and that a faithful person would pray to send a mountain crashing into the sea only if God wanted him to.

It seems, then, that prayer is doubly useless. It does not affect anything which is already in God's will, and God arranged for the pointless action to be taken.

And God would only want him to if his prayer would be answered. This is only one hypothetical scenario explaining the passages.

Your hypothetical scenario here leaves absolutely no room for an unanswered prayer. God allegedly only wants people to pray for stuff that will be answered/delivered, but it is a fairly common occurrance that people do not get everything they pray for, nor do they get an answer to every prayer.

Of course you're right that in a scientific experiment, "cause" generally means "that handle which we are manipulating", so if there was no difference between prayer and non-prayer, prayer would not be considered the "cause" (in this sense).

In what sense would it be considered the "cause"? Would those prayers which "cause" something to happen be an example of man's control over God?

WMD

BDS

Goodnight, Wayne. I can't even bring myself to read your posts anymore, much less answer them.

Have a good life. Lighten up. Quote some poetry. Shockingly, things aren't always as they seem.

Hawkingfan

You've opened a can of worms here. This is turning into a regularly-debated topic here at II (free will). The above quote is suggesting we have no free will, that all of our actions are predetermined and unchangeable. This would mean that it is unfair for god to send anyone to hell because of their beliefs. That is because they have absolutely no control over those beliefs. This would also mean that god is not just and not omnibenevolent because he created non-believers knowing full well that he would send them to hell when they die. Yet, he created them anyway. The person is truly innocent, however, and undeserving of punishment because it is not their fault they are non-believers. They cannot change what god had pre-determined.

(This would also mean that the act of prayer is totally superfluous. A complete waist of time to an intelligent human being).

BadBadBad

BDS, have you read the Bible? Even the most casual reader will notice just a slight problem with this. It has become one of the many ancient cliches in the Bible it's so ridiculous to anyone that reads it. Even a child can see how ridiculous this is. We don't need to go to some deeper level of understanding. The Bible is ridiculous even in its most basic messages.

Matthew 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Matthew 21:21-22 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

The only reason it goes against their dogma is because they obviously don't believe what Jesus himself assured them in the Bible, and why would anyone believe that? Rather than admit this as an indication of the silliness of the Bible, the people who wrote it, and the people who have believed it for centuries, they just swerve around this glaring problem.

Your error BDS is that you're making false allegations against Wyrdsmyth. Wyrdsmyth is not asking the Christian God to behave as he wants. He's asking God to behave in the way Jesus promised.

You should be embarrassed for using the same logic as christians.

conkermaniac

Unfortunately, tests like these won't convince the Christians. Even though the Bible authors describe several tests in which God's existence is proven, they were very careful to add that one should not test God (when Satan tempts Jesus to jump off a cliff or something like that). That's to ensure the credibility of Christianity when future Christians try to perform such tests and fail.

BDS

A little piece of advice to all: not all Christians are morons. To argue that they are is silly. Further, to argue that
WE atheists can interpret what the Bible REALLY means better than the Christians can is also silly.

I'm sure intelligent Christians have a perfectly reasonable answer for all of these criticisms, but I don't happen to know what it is.