Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TomboyMom · 07-16-2003, 09:27 AM

How about a crash course in valid double-blind experimental method? Basic idea is to devise a test that can falsify, and therefore verify, existence of god through rain-prayer test. For example, take a period of 500 days. Have one person pray for rain on a randomly selected 250 of those days. Have another person determine whether there is a stastically significant increase in rain on the prayer days. Something like that. Your proponent will probably concede the point without doing the work--point being that there will likely be no increase in rain corresponding to prayer for same. This does not disprove existence of god, but does disprove that rain-prayer is evidence for existence of god.

Rene

Spenser · 07-16-2003, 10:12 AM

Tell them to pray to win the lottery and then lets see how long their theory holds up...

Selsaral · 07-16-2003, 10:21 AM

That tactic could 'prove' the existence of an infinite number of completely fictional entities. Start making up creatures who control the weather, pray to it, and see if you get results. If you do then it 'proves' the creature exists? So creatures who by definition are fictional are 'proven' to exist by this method? The method is bunk.

Quantum Ninja · 07-16-2003, 10:25 AM

That argument can be restructured like this:

If God answers my prayer (for it to rain), it will rain.
It rained.
Therefore, God answered my prayer.

That's a beautiful example of the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Case closed.

wordsmyth · 07-16-2003, 10:35 AM

Ask them to pray again, but this time have them ask God to make it rain $100 bills over at my house.

Quantum Ninja · 07-16-2003, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Ask them to pray again, but this time have them ask God to make it rain $100 bills over at my house.

Include my house too and I think I might become a theist.

Theli · 07-16-2003, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by markfiend
I've come across an argument that goes like this:

1. Yesterday I prayed for rain.
2. Today it rained.
3. Therefore my prayer was answered.
4. Therefore God exists.

My counter of "but it would have rained anyway" is being met with a demand of "prove it".

Some help would be appreciated!

You could obviously meet this with a parody of his argument. "I took a crap last night, therefore it's raining today."
And then ask him to show how his simple action of praying led to a change in the weather. If he cannot, then the only true claims in his arguments are those he has directly observed, prayer and rain. Any correlation must be based on further evidence.

His claim is a typical Non Sequitur. Down the toilet!

Tom Sawyer · 07-16-2003, 01:30 PM

When I was a kid, I thought that stepping on a spider made it rain the next day.

Whenever it rained, I assumed that I had inadvertently stepped on a spider the day before. I never figured that it could have been someone else who had stepped on the spider and caused it to rain, even though I often warned people against stepping on spiders for that very reason. I just thought that it was my personal actions that affected the world around me. I knew that if, for instance, I dropped a glass, then the glass would break - I could affect the world through my actions. It seemed the logical conclusion that if I could affect the world in one way, then I should be able to affect it in other ways and the leap between being able to break a glass and being able to cause the rain seemed rational.

Then, of course, I grew up and realized that there were limits as to what I could and could not affect about the world. I can still break glasses without much difficulty (especially when I'm drunk

), but I now understand that the rainfall has absolutely nothing to do with me.

Your friend is just being immature and assuming that he is the center of the world and whatever happens is because of him. Note that it didn't rain because God decided to make it rain, but because God was answering his prayer. He did something and the world around him was affected. Most people, even theists, grow out of this delusion but it appears that your friend has not. Tell him to grow up - his argument demeans his religion.

Theli · 07-16-2003, 03:41 PM

Quote:

never figured that it could have been someone else who had stepped on the spider and caused it to rain...

And I suppose noone prayed for nice weather that day...

TheGreatInfidel · 07-16-2003, 03:58 PM

[QUOTE] 1. Yesterday I prayed for rain.
2. Today it rained.
3. Therefore my prayer was answered.
4. Therefore God exists.

That's a stupidass argument. 3) remains to be proven; it assumes what the argument is trying to prove, i.e, that there is a god that would answer a prayer. Moreover, it's a non-sequitur; What is the proof that his prayer had anything to do with the fact that it rained? Simply because event B came after event A does not imply event A caused B.

Edited to add the following remark:

This argument has my nomination for this year's Fundie-Logic award. Or at least for the Fundie-Logic Hall of Shame.

07-16-2003, 10:12 AM	#12
Spenser Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Don't you wish your boy friend got drunk like me, Posts: 7,808	Lame Argument Tell them to pray to win the lottery and then lets see how long their theory holds up...

07-16-2003, 03:58 PM	#20
TheGreatInfidel Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 183	Re: Help refuting an argument? [QUOTE] 1. Yesterday I prayed for rain. 2. Today it rained. 3. Therefore my prayer was answered. 4. Therefore God exists. That's a stupidass argument. 3) remains to be proven; it assumes what the argument is trying to prove, i.e, that there is a god that would answer a prayer. Moreover, it's a non-sequitur; What is the proof that his prayer had anything to do with the fact that it rained? Simply because event B came after event A does not imply event A caused B. Edited to add the following remark: This argument has my nomination for this year's Fundie-Logic award. Or at least for the Fundie-Logic Hall of Shame.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2003, 09:27 AM	#11
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	How about a crash course in valid double-blind experimental method? Basic idea is to devise a test that can falsify, and therefore verify, existence of god through rain-prayer test. For example, take a period of 500 days. Have one person pray for rain on a randomly selected 250 of those days. Have another person determine whether there is a stastically significant increase in rain on the prayer days. Something like that. Your proponent will probably concede the point without doing the work--point being that there will likely be no increase in rain corresponding to prayer for same. This does not disprove existence of god, but does disprove that rain-prayer is evidence for existence of god. Rene

07-16-2003, 10:21 AM	#13
Selsaral Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan Posts: 3,095	That tactic could 'prove' the existence of an infinite number of completely fictional entities. Start making up creatures who control the weather, pray to it, and see if you get results. If you do then it 'proves' the creature exists? So creatures who by definition are fictional are 'proven' to exist by this method? The method is bunk.

07-16-2003, 10:25 AM	#14
Quantum Ninja Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Between here and there Posts: 412	That argument can be restructured like this: If God answers my prayer (for it to rain), it will rain. It rained. Therefore, God answered my prayer. That's a beautiful example of the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Case closed.

07-16-2003, 10:35 AM	#15
wordsmyth Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Des Moines, Ia. U.S.A. Posts: 521	Ask them to pray again, but this time have them ask God to make it rain $100 bills over at my house.

07-16-2003, 01:30 PM	#18
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	When I was a kid, I thought that stepping on a spider made it rain the next day. Whenever it rained, I assumed that I had inadvertently stepped on a spider the day before. I never figured that it could have been someone else who had stepped on the spider and caused it to rain, even though I often warned people against stepping on spiders for that very reason. I just thought that it was my personal actions that affected the world around me. I knew that if, for instance, I dropped a glass, then the glass would break - I could affect the world through my actions. It seemed the logical conclusion that if I could affect the world in one way, then I should be able to affect it in other ways and the leap between being able to break a glass and being able to cause the rain seemed rational. Then, of course, I grew up and realized that there were limits as to what I could and could not affect about the world. I can still break glasses without much difficulty (especially when I'm drunk ), but I now understand that the rainfall has absolutely nothing to do with me. Your friend is just being immature and assuming that he is the center of the world and whatever happens is because of him. Note that it didn't rain because God decided to make it rain, but because God was answering his prayer. He did something and the world around him was affected. Most people, even theists, grow out of this delusion but it appears that your friend has not. Tell him to grow up - his argument demeans his religion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.