Quote:
Originally Posted by paulgiamatti
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Ok, now that's an honest question. That's a place we can begin a discussion. I think it was already addressed, but I'll try and explain.
1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy
2. The patient recovers! They are now cancer free and living happily
3. Hypothesis: Prayer works
4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will then recover
Ok, we've just completed an experiment. Now, let's repeat it just to be sure.
1. Someone prays for their loved one who has contracted a malignancy
2. The patient dies
3. Hypothesis: Prayer does not work all of the time
4. Inference: If you pray for someone who has contracted cancer, they will not always recover
So, that's two experiments, and so far our success rate is 50%. Do I need to continue on so you can see where this is going?
|
Well there lies another issue. First being, and I'm assuming you already know this, the statistical data for health related issues is an effort that has fallen by the waste side. Most, if not all data (though substantially small) proves that it doesn't work...... for healing sicknesses. Some have claimed it to be true, I'm just merely pointing out what you can find off google. Side note, let us assume God did exist, and he had some sort of expectation to help out our fellow man, would it really rely on him so much to heal the sick when there is the technology to heal the sick?
The next is although it isn't 100%, it's safe to assume that many scientific claims aren't 100% (which is funny, because that was the whole basis of a lot of arguments in this thread, and something I've specifically tried pointing out. I actually haven't claimed once that evolution is false, I've merely presented that it's possible that it's fabricated in the same sense that religion is fabricated). A majority of scientific minds could believe one thing to be so, therefore it is so. It works kind of like a majority vote you could say. It's also one reason science is always evolving, because things in life may later point out something wrong in previous conclusions.
Anyways, if you are to use what leewrong presented expecting a 100% result, then you are right. That wouldn't work since 100% of the population would receive the same results. It also depends on the question you ask, for example, if I ask if gravity is real by dropping a pen. It would be impossible to refute (does that make any sense what I'm saying, because honestly, don't know how to explain where I'm getting at better with that comment). There was no claim though that there had to be 100% result, and better yet, I would argue the hypocrisy for me to provide 100% results when he can't do anything of the sorts to the most heated argument in the thread, evolution.
I think you know what I'm saying though, but who knows, because supposedly no one understands anyone in this thread.