Oh, so you were asking what evidence would “tell against my theory” as in what would demonstrate that it really was a miracle vs. what I suggested about lack of medical understanding?
My computer ceased working, and so I only got a part of what I wanted to say posted. In general, I was trying to say that there should be some level of evidence that would be sufficient to prove the existence of a deity. Now, obviously, our prior probability for the god hypothesis is very low. One experiment, no matter how convincing, would not be enough to convince us. The probability would actually be higher that some part of the experiment was mishandled as opposed to god actually being real. However, an experiment (say, take three groups of terminally ill patients, give all of them equivalent levels of medical care, give the names of the members of two of the groups to a church and have them pray every day for their health, tell one of those two groups that they’re being prayed for but leave the final group ignorant, and monitor how many of them make unlikely recoveries) if it did ever provide evidence in favor of prayer working, that would be a step towards proof of god. It’s not proof on its own, of course, you’d have to replicate it, run other similar tests, etc to ensure that you ruled out all other possibilities, ensure that it can be replicated, and everything else we need before drawing those conclusions. You’d have to run a lot of tests, and those tests would have to disprove a lot of theories that we currently have good cause to believe.
We’re not absolutely certain that there is no god. Therefore, there should be some level of evidence that, if seen, would be enough to get us to change our minds. Saying that you can’t envision anything that would change your mind is really just a failure of imagination.
That makes sense, as it looked like you were about to quote, but only got the “>” down.
However, an experiment (say, take three groups of terminally ill patients...
And this has been DONE (the fact that you worded your suggestion as an exact replica of the study implies that you certainly knew this, though).
...if it did ever provide evidence in favor of prayer working, that would be a step towards proof of god.
Absolutely, so long as “god” = “entity or system that is able to bring about physical changes in the universe at the response of one or more humans.”
You’d have to run a lot of tests, and those tests would have to disprove a lot of theories that we currently have good cause to believe.
Also agreed—off hand, one should test and see if “negative intentions” can hurt others, increase the likelihood of natural disasters, or anything else. This might support the existence of an “anti-entity” or, perhaps, an entity that doesn’t care what the request is—it always answers it.
We’re not absolutely certain that there is no god.
Also agreed.
Therefore, there should be some level of evidence that, if seen, would be enough to get us to change our minds. Saying that you can’t envision anything that would change your mind is really just a failure of imagination.
Well, careful there. I specifically meant evidence of a specific god, even more specifically, that of Judeo Christianity.
For that specific god to be established as plausible to me, I already said:
I think other than god’s direct descent and explanation, I don’t think there’s any way to answer these questions and thus I’ll always probably be a non-believer.
I say this because I can’t think of any experiment that will establish whether Jesus really did rise from the grave, how “the fall” (which is necessary for Christian theology to make any sense whatsoever) occurred in light of evolution, whether OT prophets meant what it seems that they meant or what apologists say they, apparently, meant, etc.
So… I think that there surely are tests that could establish the existence of some interacting “thing” with more power to affect reality than we currently have or are aware of existing… but could experiments now establish that the specific formulation of the Christian god is true? That’s what I can’t think of any solution to… except for one:
All very true. My one possible quibble is that if you were ever able to prove that the bible/religious authorities were generally trustworthy, then their beliefs about jesus rising from the dead might qualify as evidence...maybe...a little...but probably not.
I have heard of that study. I came up with the idea to use in arguments (basically offer to run that experiment to theists and see if they accept, to test whether or not they are anticipating whether god exists). Then I found out that it had already been done. I’m calling this one an example of “great minds think alike”.
Oh, so you were asking what evidence would “tell against my theory” as in what would demonstrate that it really was a miracle vs. what I suggested about lack of medical understanding?
My computer ceased working, and so I only got a part of what I wanted to say posted. In general, I was trying to say that there should be some level of evidence that would be sufficient to prove the existence of a deity. Now, obviously, our prior probability for the god hypothesis is very low. One experiment, no matter how convincing, would not be enough to convince us. The probability would actually be higher that some part of the experiment was mishandled as opposed to god actually being real. However, an experiment (say, take three groups of terminally ill patients, give all of them equivalent levels of medical care, give the names of the members of two of the groups to a church and have them pray every day for their health, tell one of those two groups that they’re being prayed for but leave the final group ignorant, and monitor how many of them make unlikely recoveries) if it did ever provide evidence in favor of prayer working, that would be a step towards proof of god. It’s not proof on its own, of course, you’d have to replicate it, run other similar tests, etc to ensure that you ruled out all other possibilities, ensure that it can be replicated, and everything else we need before drawing those conclusions. You’d have to run a lot of tests, and those tests would have to disprove a lot of theories that we currently have good cause to believe.
We’re not absolutely certain that there is no god. Therefore, there should be some level of evidence that, if seen, would be enough to get us to change our minds. Saying that you can’t envision anything that would change your mind is really just a failure of imagination.
That makes sense, as it looked like you were about to quote, but only got the “>” down.
And this has been DONE (the fact that you worded your suggestion as an exact replica of the study implies that you certainly knew this, though).
Absolutely, so long as “god” = “entity or system that is able to bring about physical changes in the universe at the response of one or more humans.”
Also agreed—off hand, one should test and see if “negative intentions” can hurt others, increase the likelihood of natural disasters, or anything else. This might support the existence of an “anti-entity” or, perhaps, an entity that doesn’t care what the request is—it always answers it.
Also agreed.
Well, careful there. I specifically meant evidence of a specific god, even more specifically, that of Judeo Christianity.
For that specific god to be established as plausible to me, I already said:
I say this because I can’t think of any experiment that will establish whether Jesus really did rise from the grave, how “the fall” (which is necessary for Christian theology to make any sense whatsoever) occurred in light of evolution, whether OT prophets meant what it seems that they meant or what apologists say they, apparently, meant, etc.
So… I think that there surely are tests that could establish the existence of some interacting “thing” with more power to affect reality than we currently have or are aware of existing… but could experiments now establish that the specific formulation of the Christian god is true? That’s what I can’t think of any solution to… except for one:
Give me a time machine for a day.
All very true. My one possible quibble is that if you were ever able to prove that the bible/religious authorities were generally trustworthy, then their beliefs about jesus rising from the dead might qualify as evidence...maybe...a little...but probably not.
I have heard of that study. I came up with the idea to use in arguments (basically offer to run that experiment to theists and see if they accept, to test whether or not they are anticipating whether god exists). Then I found out that it had already been done. I’m calling this one an example of “great minds think alike”.