by PSacramento 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
it is not necessarily so.- Tammy
Yes it is.
Any scientist who believes that god answers prayers has to suppose that god does no such thing in order to gather useful data.
Despite your constant protests to the contrary it is obvious you have contempt for science Tammy.
One can argue that the super natural is just the natural world, yet discovered or explained
This was why I asked you not to play semantics with the word - "supernatural". It was such an obvious cop-out.
Cofty, you have a pm.
Thanks MrsJones - got it and replied.
This was why I asked you not to play semantics with the word - "supernatural". It was such an obvious cop-out.
Agreed BUT that said, just because we view supernatural as "A", doesn't mean someone else views it as "A", they may view it as "B" or "C" or whatever.
Have you heard of these guys?
CHristians In Science
I mention them because they are in your "neck of the woods".
Let me elaborate for cofty, who is making a very good point.
If you believe that god is curing diseases for people because they are praying for it, then it would make collecting data on how a certain drug is healing patients completely meaningless. Did the drug cure these patients, or was it supernatural? A scientist has to assume god isn't performing any miracles in order to make any meaningful assessments of data collected. It is a salient point that if god was regularly intervening in the universe, science itself would be nearly impossible as data would end up being (from our standpoint) bizarrely random and contradictory. Science only takes place because we don't have christians miraculously being cured on a regular basis, or physical laws suddenly being suspended.
Any scientist can't believe both in miracles and the trust the data collected to be an accurate reflection of what is being studied.
Any scientist who believes that god answers prayers has to suppose that god does no such thing in order to gather useful data.
Yeah, I got what you were saying in regard to that.
Though one might simply have to proceed as the obsevable evidence leads, when presenting observable findings. Without knowing what discrepency to look for in a person who has been healed by God or medicine, or if there even is a discrepency, then how could one factor this in, in an observable way?
My 'it is not necessarily so' was in regard to someone who believes in God (no qualifications added).
Despite your constant protests to the contrary it is obvious you have contempt for science Tammy.
I have zero contempt for science. Asking questions and pointing out discrepencies is supposed to be a good thing.
But you are entitled to your opinion,and Iam weary of making the same statement to you over and over again... only to be told by you what I think.
Peace,
tammy
cofty
Any scientist who believes that god answers prayers has to suppose that god does no such thing in order to gather useful data.
I think many would include prayer as (at least) part of the placebo efect.
Thank you JonathanH.
Deputy Dog - Placebo effect is precisely why double-blind trials are the gold standard for testing.
If a scientist believes that a theist god actually healed a number of people in his trial group then the data is meaningless.
Theism makes science impossible. The only solution is for the believing scientist to completely exclude the one factor that he declares to be the most important thing in his life outside the lab.
He prays for the healing of his friends and family and then assumes his prayers are in vain in order to do his job = benevolent hypocrisy
Pray as though no work could help, and work as though no prayer could help. - German Proverb
