tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post8268205386203967594..comments2023-11-22T09:00:59.909-08:00Comments on Atheistwatch: John Loftus Has No ClothesJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-23978958841903702942010-11-16T19:34:33.967-08:002010-11-16T19:34:33.967-08:00I'm going to answer this last comment in the m...I'm going to answer this last comment in the main blog section as a new article.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-58188508034379109492010-11-15T06:52:24.628-08:002010-11-15T06:52:24.628-08:00"Winning at a slot machine is not more than n...<i>"Winning at a slot machine is not more than nature by itself would produce. An incurable disease disappearing over night is."</i><br /><br />I disagree. It's unusual, it's against the odds, and we may not fully understand why it happens, but it's not impossible. <br /><br /><i>"Obviously there is or you wouldn't be arguing about it. The only veriable that changes (Lourdes rules rule out drugs)"</i><br /><br />Except we've seen that visits to Lourdes actually DECREASES the rate of cures, so the only correlation you can assert there is actually a negative one, which doesn't help your case.<br /><br /><i>"<br />answer by theodicy position"</i><br /><br />Read the question more carefully, this one isn't answered by any theodicy. If there is some purpose behind these miracles, something to be learned, then we should be able to see some consistency, some pattern, some sense to them. But there is none; they are indistinguishable from random chance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-28383316688815655282010-11-15T04:42:12.271-08:002010-11-15T04:42:12.271-08:00The problem is that you have no way of demonstrati...The problem is that you have no way of demonstrating that it was the prayer and not some random, natural event which was the difference.<br /><br /><b>I don't have to. I have reasons to think that and that's all I need. I don't have to prove miracles, they are rationally warranted.</b><br /><br />If I win a t the slot machine while wearing my lucky hat that doesn't mean the hat was responsible.<br /><br /><b>Winning at a slot machine is not more than nature by itself would produce. An incurable disease disappearing over night is.</b><br /><br />"The fact that God doesn't heal most of the time does not cancel the times he does. that's why you have to go case by case."<br /><br />Except there is no consistent correlation between prayer and healing. You wouldn't accept this "case by case" approach if we were testing any other form of treatment, would you?<br /><br /><br /><b>Obviously there is or you wouldn't be arguing about it. The only veriable that changes (Lourdes rules rule out drugs).</b><br /><br />And I'm still left with the question (which you didn't answer last time I asked it) of why God would behave in such an apparently arbitrary and capricious manner.<br /><br /><b>answer by theodicy position</b><br /><br /><br /> How does making His actions indistinguishable from random chance serve the purpose of your soteriological drama?<br /><br /><b>answered by the zone theory</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-16768122943532634462010-11-14T17:25:10.466-08:002010-11-14T17:25:10.466-08:00The problem is that you have no way of demonstrati...The problem is that you have no way of demonstrating that it was the prayer and not some random, natural event which was the difference.<br /><br />If I win a t the slot machine while wearing my lucky hat that doesn't mean the hat was responsible.<br /><br /><i>"The fact that God doesn't heal most of the time does not cancel the times he does. that's why you have to go case by case."</i><br /><br />Except there is no consistent correlation between prayer and healing. You wouldn't accept this "case by case" approach if we were testing any other form of treatment, would you?<br /><br />And I'm still left with the question (which you didn't answer last time I asked it) of why God would behave in such an apparently arbitrary and capricious manner. How does making His actions indistinguishable from random chance serve the purpose of your soteriological drama?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-17022432063493103382010-11-14T17:10:43.899-08:002010-11-14T17:10:43.899-08:00How many millions of others have prayed the same p...How many millions of others have prayed the same prayer and died anyway? If you're counting the hits and ignoring the misses, that isn't a reliable guide to what works.<br /><br /><b>that has nothing to do with it. let's use some logic for a change. The fact that God doesn't heal most of the time does not cancel the times he does. that's why you have to go case by case.<br /><br />on a case by case basis, if it is an outcome that we know nature would not produce on its own we should assume it's an answer. That most are not answered cannot in any sense invalidate the one's that are becuase each prayer has it's own unique warrant for being understood as valid.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-26421655762236729662010-11-14T13:36:15.341-08:002010-11-14T13:36:15.341-08:00" I spent years keeping a prayer journal. I g...<i>" I spent years keeping a prayer journal. I got hundreds of answered prayers many of them impossible. I used to have a big list. Just a couple that come to mind:<br /><br />(1) father had prostate problem, after prayer no trace of problem..."</i><br /><br />How many millions of others have prayed the same prayer and died anyway? If you're counting the hits and ignoring the misses, that isn't a reliable guide to what works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-84456376244602370892010-11-13T11:26:48.252-08:002010-11-13T11:26:48.252-08:00I noted that (John's choice of words), alas, a...I noted that (John's choice of words), alas, after I had published.<br /><br />He still should have pointed it out more clearly, becuase atheists never deal with the other aspects. We hear so often "prayer doesn't work" but they never say "for what."Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-86681935065431196202010-11-12T20:00:00.596-08:002010-11-12T20:00:00.596-08:00'Right away we have the argument turning upon ...<i>'Right away we have the argument turning upon as shallow and inadequate definition. Praying for God to do something is a subset of prayer. This is not the definition of prayer it's the definition of "petition" which is a part of prayer. "</i><br /><br />That would be why Loftus explicitly says that he is talking about petitionary prayers....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com