Philosophy Now Forum

Bob:

So let me see if I understand your argument here...

Premise 1: Billy Graham is old...

Premise 2: He's in bad shape...

Premise 3: He probably has a ghost writer....

Conclusion: therefore, prayer is a scam.

Sorry, bob... I'm not seeing a rational connection. Maybe you'll explain.

Immanuel Can wrote:Premise 3: He probably has a ghost writer....Conclusion: therefore, prayer is a scam. Sorry, bob... I'm not seeing a rational connection. Maybe you'll explain.

First of all, he doesn't probably have a ghost writer, he does have a ghost writer:

Bob,

We appreciate your question as to whether Mr. Graham really composes each reply in his “My Answer” column. Through the years God has given Mr. Graham some wonderful people at various stages of his ministry to help him in research for his sermons and writings. There are currently members of Mr. Graham’s staff, who have worked very closely with him through the years, who assist him in responding to questions submitted to the “My Answer” column in a way that closely reflects his mind and spirit. We trust this information is helpful. May God bless you.

Sincerely,

K. C. James
Administrative Services
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association
http://www.billygraham.org

Secondly, this is just one example of the duplicity of all religious and spiritual advocates, with the exception, of course, of your humble narrator, Bob the Baptist.

I'm not disputing the ghost writer...I'm just pointing out that even if true it goes nowhere in regard to your argument.

Secondly, this is just one example of the duplicity of all religious and spiritual advocates, with the exception, of course, of your humble narrator, Bob the Baptist.

So now your claim is, "Billy Graham is duplicitous, therefore all religious and spiritual advocates are."

What a stunning bit of nonsense. Are you seriously trying to support such a claim? It's neither evident nor even remotely rationally connected to the evidence you adduce. You don't even say anything about prayer in it. It's pure ad hominem of the most absurd kind.

Come on "bob," surely you can do better.

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm not disputing the ghost writer...I'm just pointing out that even if true it goes nowhere in regard to your argument.

Secondly, this is just one example of the duplicity of all religious and spiritual advocates, with the exception, of course, of your humble narrator, Bob the Baptist.

So now your claim is, "Billy Graham is duplicitous, therefore all religious and spiritual advocates are."

What a stunning bit of nonsense. Are you seriously trying to support such a claim? It's neither evident nor even remotely rationally connected to the evidence you adduce. You don't even say anything about prayer in it. It's pure ad hominem of the most absurd kind.

Come on "bob," surely you can do better.

I'm sorry, but if you took the time to read and understand the book of Revelation and "The Ouzo Prophecy," you might be able to appreciate the truth of what I'm saying. I was merely using Billy Graham as a symbol of all religious advocates, the false prophets who use our institutions to further their own agendas. And, my friend, prayer is just one of the scams they have used from time immemorial.

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm not disputing the ghost writer...I'm just pointing out that even if true it goes nowhere in regard to your argument.

What do you mean, "even if true," do you want a signed affidavit?

Bob, if you'd read the Book of Revelations more often than I have, I'd be surprised. It's possible --it's just not likely.

As for Ouzo...well, I trust you'll enjoy that.

Your argument still amounts to no more than "I know some particular religious people I view as scams, therefore all religion and all its manifestations are scams." That's no more rational than me saying, " I once met a guy who called himself a scientist, and he believed in astrology (I did, by the way), so now all science and its manifestations are scams, just like astrology."

I still say you can do a whole lot better than that sort of logic.

P.S.

What do you mean, "even if true," do you want a signed affidavit?

No. I mean I could grant you 100% accuracy, and it still wouldn't make any case at all for your argument. The problem is not that I doubt you; it's that your argument makes no logical sense even if I don't.

Immanuel Can wrote:Bob, if you'd read the Book of Revelations more often than I have, I'd be surprised. It's possible --it's just not likely.

As for Ouzo...well, I trust you'll enjoy that.

Your argument still amounts to no more than "I know some particular religious people I view as scams, therefore all religion and all its manifestations are scams." That's no more rational than me saying, " I once met a guy who called himself a scientist, and he believed in astrology (I did, by the way), so now all science and its manifestations are scams, just like astrology."

I still say you can do a whole lot better than that sort of logic.

P.S.

What do you mean, "even if true," do you want a signed affidavit?

No. I mean I could grant you 100% accuracy, and it still wouldn't make any case at all for your argument. The problem is not that I doubt you; it's that your argument makes no logical sense even if I don't.

Actually, it's the book of Revelation, not the Book of Revelations, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if you've read the book more than I have since I'm not even that familiar with it, but I am the only person in history who has understood Revelation, which should be obvious to you after reading "The Ouzo Prophecy."

Still waiting for your proof that prayer doesn't work.

The rest is apparently just artful dodging.

Go ahead.

Immanuel Can wrote:Still waiting for your proof that prayer doesn't work.

The rest is apparently just artful dodging.

Go ahead.

I'll ignore your ad hominem attack, and address your request for proof on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (oh, I'm sorry, I meant your equivalent request for proof that prayer doesn't work). I guess you're going to have to wait awhile, my friend.

bobevenson wrote: I'll ignore your ad hominem attack, and address your request for proof on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

Sensitive aren't you?

The answer, - "All of them".

Learn about prayer here.
http://medjugorje.org/

QMan wrote:Learn about prayer here.
http://medjugorje.org/

The Medjugorje Web is dedicated to providing information about one of the most amazing and important supernatural events of our time. Since 1981, in a small village named Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina (map), The Blessed Virgin Mary has been appearing and giving messages to the world. She tells us that God has sent her to our world and, these years she is spending with us are a time of Grace granted by God. In her own words she tells us, "I have come to tell the world that God exists. He is the fullness of life, and to enjoy this fullness and peace, you must return to God".

Since the apparitions began in 1981, millions of people of all faiths, from all over the world, have visited Medjugorje and have left spiritually strengthened and renewed. Countless unbelievers and physically or mentally afflicted, have been converted and healed. You owe it to yourself and your loved ones, to investigate with an open mind and heart the events which are occurring in Medjugorje. I invite you to explore all the information contained on this Web Site, and decide for yourself whether you will answer Our Lady's call from Heaven. More...

Yes, "It's a Barnum and Bailey world, just as phony as it can be."

"Yes, "It's a Barnum and Bailey world, just as phony as it can be.""

Since this is a philosophy forum the basic ground rule from philosophy 101 applies here:

You cannot prove something else with an unproven or unprovable.

Since your statement is unprovable, it can be safely ignored.

QMan wrote:"Yes, "It's a Barnum and Bailey world, just as phony as it can be.""

Since this is a philosophy forum the basic ground rule from philosophy 101 applies here:

You cannot prove something else with an unproven or unprovable.

Since your statement is unprovable, it can be safely ignored.

My statement stands, pal.

"Ad hominem"? What are you talking about, bob?

All I asked was how you know prayer is bunk. You said you knew that. Surely you know on evidence, right? So if I assume you're a reasonable person, then you have evidence; but you're not supplying it, so I can only conclude you're "dodging."

No ad hominem implication needed or intended. I'm going on the evidence you've supplied. If you think I've done you an injustice, prove me wrong: it's easy -- just give the evidence you've been holding out.

I will wait.