Philosophy Now Forum

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Still waiting, bob.

Assuming you are suffering from some form of ocular disintegration, I'll repeat my earlier reply in larger type:

"Again, asking for proof that prayer isn't bunk is like asking for proof of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Another way of saying this is to say that you cannot disprove an unprovable hypothesis.

"In modern usage, this question serves as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence." --from Wikepedia.

P.S. I love seeing Immanuel Can get slapped around.

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
Another way of saying this is to say that you cannot disprove an unprovable hypothesis.

"In modern usage, this question serves as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence." --from Wikepedia.

P.S. I love seeing Immanuel Can get slapped around.

It's such a shame that you are utterly devoid of the wit to do it.

Oh, great, now there's another asshole I've got to take on! You should change your moniker to Hobson's Choice, which is no choice at all.

bobevenson wrote: "In modern usage, this question serves as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence." --from Wikepedia.

It's probably also worth keeping in mind that you cannot prove prayer is bunk because it goes without saying that you cannot prove something that is not provable. Yes, wikipedia is right the whole thing is of no intellectual consequence. Nothing can be proven one way or the other.

Immanuel Can wrote:"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.

Things asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

There is not positive evidence for prayer. Case closed.

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote: "In modern usage, this question serves as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence." --from Wikepedia.

It's probably also worth keeping in mind that you cannot prove prayer is bunk because it goes without saying that you cannot prove something that is not provable. Yes, wikipedia is right the whole thing is of no intellectual consequence. Nothing can be proven one way or the other.

In this case. "One way or the Other" is ipso facto prayer does not work.
To assert the effectiveness of a thing needs be shown, with evidence.
For example, If I assert that drinking pig's urine will cure lung cancer. The response is not "cannot be proved one way or the other." If no positive evidence exists, then pig's urine is simply not a known effective treatment. If a trail is done and finds nothing, then the assertion is denied.
There is no case to answer here.

The fact is that intercessionary prayer has in fact been tested and found wanting.
The last study I read was that those NOT being prayed for in a study of heart disease recovery, did far better than those that were prayed for.
I am not going to suggest that prayer is harmful, but I could.

bobevenson wrote:Oh, great, now there's another asshole I've got to take on! You should change your moniker to Hobson's Choice, which is no choice at all.

From what I can tell so far, your attempts to "take on" others have failed miserably.
You, and Felasco, are the sad loners on the site unable to find favour with anyone.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Oh, great, now there's another asshole I've got to take on! You should change your moniker to Hobson's Choice, which is no choice at all.

unable to find favour

That explains everything, you're British.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Oh, great, now there's another asshole I've got to take on! You should change your moniker to Hobson's Choice, which is no choice at all.

unable to find favour

That explains everything, you're British.

Thank you.

You'd probably say the same thing if I said you were satanic.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
In this case. "One way or the Other" is ipso facto prayer does not work.
To assert the effectiveness of a thing needs be shown, with evidence.
For example, If I assert that drinking pig's urine will cure lung cancer. The response is not "cannot be proved one way or the other." If no positive evidence exists, then pig's urine is simply not a known effective treatment. If a trail is done and finds nothing, then the assertion is denied.
There is no case to answer here.

Yes, this would be absence of evidence.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The fact is that intercessionary prayer has in fact been tested and found wanting.
The last study I read was that those NOT being prayed for in a study of heart disease recovery, did far better than those that were prayed for.
I am not going to suggest that prayer is harmful, but I could.

This would be evidence of absence.

Ginkgo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
In this case. "One way or the Other" is ipso facto prayer does not work.
To assert the effectiveness of a thing needs be shown, with evidence.
For example, If I assert that drinking pig's urine will cure lung cancer. The response is not "cannot be proved one way or the other." If no positive evidence exists, then pig's urine is simply not a known effective treatment. If a trail is done and finds nothing, then the assertion is denied.
There is no case to answer here.

Yes, this would be absence of evidence.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The fact is that intercessionary prayer has in fact been tested and found wanting.
The last study I read was that those NOT being prayed for in a study of heart disease recovery, did far better than those that were prayed for.
I am not going to suggest that prayer is harmful, but I could.

This would be evidence of absence.

Gee thanks. I'm not sure that's helpful.

In the last instance it's not actually evidence of absence; but evidence to the contrary. In other words prayer seemed to do harm.

But I stick to the assertion that "god" being absent in both cases; does not warrant that "cannot be proved one way or the other."- as it give the question an completely ridiculous importance it does not deserve.
This reminds me of the phrase in science "NOT EVEN WRONG". Indicating that a thing is so absurd that the question itself is meaningless.

bobevenson wrote:You'd probably say the same thing if I said you were satanic.

Nope - I'd just find in that more evidence that you are a complete moron, not just a work-a-day moron, but a pine encrusted, superannuated, died-in-the-wool, out-to-lunch, revelling in his own pig shit type of voluntary moron.

A moron who wallows in the slime that extrudes from his fetid brain.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:You'd probably say the same thing if I said you were satanic.

Nope - I'd just find in that more evidence that you are a complete moron, not just a work-a-day moron, but a pine encrusted, superannuated, died-in-the-wool, out-to-lunch, revelling in his own pig shit type of voluntary moron.

A moron who wallows in the slime that extrudes from his fetid brain.

See, that shows how deluded you are. How could a complete moron write "The Ouzo Prophecy"? On the other hand, writing "died-in-the-wool" instead of "dyed-in-the-wool" is certainly evidence of moronic tendencies.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:You'd probably say the same thing if I said you were satanic.

Nope - I'd just find in that more evidence that you are a complete moron, not just a work-a-day moron, but a pine encrusted, superannuated, died-in-the-wool, out-to-lunch, revelling in his own pig shit type of voluntary moron.

A moron who wallows in the slime that extrudes from his fetid brain.

See, that shows how deluded you are. How could a complete moron write "The Ouzo Prophecy"? On the other hand, writing "died-in-the-wool" instead of "dyed-in-the-wool" is certainly evidence of moronic tendencies.

You are dead on your feet, brain dead, dead from the knees up. If you weren't still kicking you'd be in a pine box six feet under. You are dead to the world and dead to me.
You have nothing to say, except you idiotic "ouzo" bollocks.
How could anyone BUT a moron write the Ouzo Prophecy?
It's not a prophecy, and it nothing to do with Ouzo. What more moronic thing exists in the universe.
You are an idiot.
You are the lowest common denominator on this Forum and bring it all down with you, with your childish prattle.