Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (26192)	9/7/2001 2:57:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Not at all. If the efficacy of prayer is what is intended to be demonstrated, then the deity would presumably be interested in demonstrating the efficacy of prayer, with few further complications. This is more broadly a comfort, for it is discernible evidence of the operation of providence in the world, even when not so highlighted, and therefore evidence that in the end, "all shall be well", as Dame Juliana of Norwich wrote. The primary purpose of miracles, according to the Bible, is to demonstrate God's power......

To: Lane3 who wrote (26192)	9/7/2001 3:05:35 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

it's hard to imagine any self-respecting deity setting up a system that metes out healing based on the efforts of prayers. That sort of statement makes several assumptions. First, that we are even capable of understanding what and why a deity might do. I don't think my dogs are capable of understanding why I leve them alone shut up in their kennels five mornings in a row and come home just in time to feed them dinner those five days, but on two other days stay home most of the day and am available to play with them a lot more, but sometimes stay home three days in a row and then go away during the day for the next four days, etc. If my dogs, who live with me and see me and watch me every day and are also physical beings like I am can't understand me, why on earth (or off earth) should we think we can understand the rationales of a deity or why he/she/it does what he/she/it does? Second, that even if we were able to understand fully, why should a deity follow our rules or ideas for what is appropriate or inappropriate to do? It is, IMO, the height of arrogance for us to argue, either explicitly or, as I think you do, implicitly, that deities have to comply with our notions of right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice. In other words, what does whether a deity is self-respecting or not have to do with our rules for ourselves? There are more problems with that statement, but I'll let these two do for now while I go make lunch.

To: Lane3 who wrote (26192)	9/7/2001 3:05:38 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Also, of course, the point is that there is a comparison of two randomly selected groups, one to operate as the control. The assumption is that there is a similar distribution of factors among the groups (like worthiness). As with any other tested factor, the idea is that all things being roughly equal, the treated group should show more improvement than the control group. If God is not arbitrary and capricious, but responds according to similar judgements in similar cases, there should be a discernible difference.