The Uselessness Of The Rational Method

[Jeff K.]

I said I wrote more than what you quoted. Read it.

Quote

The effects of God are difficult for you to measure and you therefore tell us it must not exist if you cannot measure the effects (the illogic of that alone is a chasm of silliness). We on the other hand tell you we do feel it and we are aware of the effects.

I don't say "therefore God doesn't exist". Again, you missed the point entirely.

If you mean this, its just as silly. Why are you measuring or suggesting someone measure the effects of something you think doesn't exist? Aside from the fact that such measurement is very difficult, if not impossible, you would merely wave your arm and cry "statistical outlier" or "anomaly", or "within probable statistics".

You see you are still caught up in the whole idea that something must go against the grain for the measurement to measure God's effects when in fact it may just as easily follow the probability tables you seem to love so much.

[elguanteloko]

If you mean this, its just as silly. Why are you measuring or suggesting someone measure the effects of something you think doesn't exist? Aside from the fact that such measurement is very difficult, if not impossible, you would merely wave your arm and cry "statistical outlier" or "anomaly", or "within probable statistics".

You see you are still caught up in the whole idea that something must go against the grain for the measurement to measure God's effects when in fact it may just as easily follow the probability tables you seem to love so much.

I said you can go and read the other thread where I very clearly explain what I mean. I also gave an analogous case here.

[shalamabobbi]

Apologies to elguanteloco if I made you feel compelled to re-enter a dialog you wished to drop. Since Robert F Smith's assessment of your thread is an accurate portrayal of the point you were making, I don't really have a great deal to discuss on the matter.

Robert F Smith -

With respect to dark matter, it is accepted based upon the observation of the spin rate of visible galaxies not agreeing with the known law of gravity. Rather than throw the law of gravity on it's head it is deduced that there must be more matter that is not being seen.

The same principle has been used throughout the development of physics. Some particles collide and the visible resultant particles violate the law of momentum or of energy and it is deduced that there must be another unseen particle involved carrying away the missing energy/momentum. The particle is then searched for both in the math and new detection mechanisms until it is verified.

[Jeff K.]

I said you can go and read the other thread where I very clearly explain what I mean. I also gave an analogous case here.

A dodge. I understand. But still a dodge. You apparently aren't quite understanding the answers are you?

[Jeff K.]

Apologies to elguanteloco if I made you feel compelled to re-enter a dialog you wished to drop. Since Robert F Smith's assessment of your thread is an accurate portrayal of the point you were making, I don't really have a great deal to discuss on the matter.

Robert F Smith -

With respect to dark matter, it is accepted based upon the observation of the spin rate of visible galaxies not agreeing with the known law of gravity. Rather than through the law of gravity on it's head it is deduced that there must be more matter that is not being seen.

The same principle has been used throughout the development of physics. Some particles collide and the visible resultant particles violate the law of momentum or of energy and it is deduced that there must be another unseen particle involved carrying away the missing energy/momentum. The particle is then searched for both in the math and new detection mechanisms until it is verified.

Here is the problem. What if dark matter existed but was not measureable. And indeed what if like "tachyons" it cannot be measured. What then? Your entire point regarding dark matter is that as such it is measureable. But if you cannot measure it or its effects, does that somehow nullify its existence? Your literalist approach overlooks a very clear arguments.

1-Not everything can be measured with instruments we have today

2-Measurement of effects for something that cannot be identified clearly or isolated simply cannot be done

We find new things everyday, sometimes as our instruments become more sophisticated we find ourselves able to measure them and their effects (like planets around a distant sun). But if our instruments are not sufficiently sensitive, then it is obvious we cannot know of a certainty whether or not the effects are being made from the source we presume. Finally just because we do not or cannot measure (for example a distant planets rotation around a distant sun) does not mean it doesn't exist, nor does it mean there isn't an effect upon us.

[Jeff K.]

I said you can go and read the other thread where I very clearly explain what I mean. I also gave an analogous case here.

And so the dogmatic are left with their catchisms. Enjoy the beads.

[Brian 2.0]

No, you cannot. Unless you have the instrumentation to measure say the effects of the priesthood or the effects of medicine without the intercession of God or the priesthood. You cannot do this if you cannot measure the amount of intercession. Nor can you do it if God power is diffused among several different branches including His desire to help. Remember God doesn't need the priesthood, but the priesthood needs God in such cases. So no, you cannot isolate the effects if you cannot measure the power effecting the what it is you are attempting to study.

How does one measure the gravitational pull of Jupiter upon an individual upon the earth when the heavens are closed to us?

Your approach does not work.

I'm reposting most of this from a previous thread:

If there is a group of people that God DOES heal in response to a priesthood blessing, then that group will show up on statistical level.

We are NOT testing: God existence, the other benefits and blessings God can give to those who receive a blessing (strength, peace of mind, etc). We are ONLY testing for God intervening and healing someone because they had a priesthood blessing.

Here are 4 groups:

1) People whom God isn't going to heal despite all spiritual efforts: That would be the same for people getting blessings or not getting blessings so that group is irrelevant

2) People who are going to get better, despite all, if any, spiritual efforts: That would be the same for people getting blessings or not getting blessings so that group is irrelevant

3) People whom God will NOT heal BECAUSE people didn't ask/pray/fast/blessing/having enough faith/Temple roll but would have if they had done one or more of those things

4) People whom God WILL heal BECAUSE people DID ask/pray/fast/blessing/have enough faith/Temple roll

If group 4 actually exists (and group 3, one cannot exist without the other), then it should show up on a statistical level if the data could be collected.

If that statistical advantage is found, then more work would have to be done to test between blessing only vs. praying only vs. blessing and praying, etc.

BUT if that statistical advantage is NOT found then you would have to conclude that NONE of the "ask/pray/fast/blessing/have enough faith/Temple roll" had any effect on the chances of recovery.

The other option is that the advantage is so statistically small that that it would fall into the the margin of error for the experiment.

[Jeff K.]

Your presumptions are incorrect.

1) People whom God isn't going to heal despite all spiritual efforts: That would be the same for people getting blessings or not getting blessings so that group is irrelevant

2) People who are going to get better, despite all, if any, spiritual efforts: That would be the same for people getting blessings or not getting blessings so that group is irrelevant

3) People whom God will NOT heal BECAUSE people didn't ask/pray/fast/blessing/having enough faith/Temple roll but would have if they had done one or more of those things

4) People whom God WILL heal BECAUSE people DID ask/pray/fast/blessing/have enough faith/Temple roll

For instance, God sometimes heals people who don't ask.

God also sometimes will not heal people who do ask, for various reasons.

God also sometimes help people get better because God allows them to, and sometimes because God inspires the doctors to look at different treatments, and because sometimes treatments with a low success rate work.

So no, your statistical model is muddled and cannot differentiate. Your preseumption is a clean break between all of these groups. You also presume erroneously that God cannot work through doctors (as He did when with Joseph Smith's leg). God cannot work through treatments, God cannot work through discoveries. God could make some medications more efficacious.... The list goes on, and therefore your assumptions simply do not work because the variables are to large for your model.

It seems fairly obvious.

[shalamabobbi]

Here is the problem. What if dark matter existed but was not measureable. And indeed what if like "tachyons" it cannot be measured. What then? Your entire point regarding dark matter is that as such it is measureable. But if you cannot measure it or its effects, does that somehow nullify its existence? Your literalist approach overlooks a very clear arguments.

1-Not everything can be measured with instruments we have today

2-Measurement of effects for something that cannot be identified clearly or isolated simply cannot be done

We find new things everyday, sometimes as our instruments become more sophisticated we find ourselves able to measure them and their effects (like planets around a distant sun). But if our instruments are not sufficiently sensitive, then it is obvious we cannot know of a certainty whether or not the effects are being made from the source we presume. Finally just because we do not or cannot measure (for example a distant planets rotation around a distant sun) does not mean it doesn't exist, nor does it mean there isn't an effect upon us.

I am uncertain what point you are making.

What you stated is fairly obvious. Things remain unknown until they are discovered. And..?

[Brian 2.0]

Your presumptions are incorrect.

For instance, God sometimes heals people who don't ask.

Those people are in Group #2

God also sometimes will not heal people who do ask, for various reasons.

Those people are in Group #1

God also sometimes help people get better because God allows them to, and sometimes because God inspires the doctors to look at different treatments, and because sometimes treatments with a low success rate work.

This is Group #4. I never mentioned that the people healed by God were not done so by inspiring doctors, etc. Only that God working through those methods came about because they " ask/pray/fast/blessing/have enough faith/Temple roll"

So no, your statistical model is muddled and cannot differentiate. Your preseumption is a clean break between all of these groups. You also presume erroneously that God cannot work through doctors (as He did when with Joseph Smith's leg). God cannot work through treatments, God cannot work through discoveries. God could make some medications more efficacious.... The list goes on, and therefore your assumptions simply do not work because the variables are to large for your model.

I am making no such erroneous assumption. God can work through doctors, treatments, discoveries, medications, etc in both Groups #2 and #4.

It seems fairly obvious.

Does it? Because you just accused my model of being muddled and not including groups that it clearly does.

Edit: I'm including the #4 groups here so people don't need to scroll up:

1) People whom God isn't going to heal despite all spiritual efforts: That would be the same for people getting blessings or not getting blessings so that group is irrelevant

2) People who are going to get better, despite all, if any, spiritual efforts: That would be the same for people getting blessings or not getting blessings so that group is irrelevant

3) People whom God will NOT heal BECAUSE people didn't ask/pray/fast/blessing/having enough faith/Temple roll but would have if they had done one or more of those things

4) People whom God WILL heal BECAUSE people DID ask/pray/fast/blessing/have enough faith/Temple roll

I'm happy to add another group, or alter the description, but the cases you presented are not outside of these groups.

[Jeff K.]

In short, you cannot know or judge when and how God works, making your statistical model meaningless since you cannot in any sense of the word classify how and when He worked.

[Jeff K.]

Your list of presumptions are what I considered muddled. It seems somewhat obvious.

1) People whom God isn't going to heal despite all spiritual efforts: That would be the same for people getting blessings or not getting blessings so that group is irrelevant

2) People who are going to get better, despite all, if any, spiritual efforts: That would be the same for people getting blessings or not getting blessings so that group is irrelevant

3) People whom God will NOT heal BECAUSE people didn't ask/pray/fast/blessing/having enough faith/Temple roll but would have if they had done one or more of those things

4) People whom God WILL heal BECAUSE people DID ask/pray/fast/blessing/have enough faith/Temple roll

Sigh.... I hate to burst your bubble but lets look at the classifications

1-The group isn't irrelevant because it would be a control group. If you worked in statistics you would know why there is a need for a control group.

2-Two is not the same for both catagories since you cannot know when they get better due to God's intercession and when they get better as a matter of course. Among other things you cannot know if they got better because God provided inspiration to the Doctor to do something different (inspiration does not come with a little signal flare saying its from God). Or because a treatment was developed prior to the person getting better which was also inspired of God. Since you cannot classify one or the other, you cannot state with any catagorical precision whether or not to place them in your second box.

3-Sometimes God does not heal, whether asked or not.

4-You also forgot that God does heal people without their needing to ask. Therefore you again cannot know if God healed someone because they asked, or because God Himself decided it was needed. In other words in some cases they don't need to ask. People often ask God and God sometimes does not heal even though He is asked.

Each one of your presemptions is a sieve with so many holes in it you cannot with surety keep a statistical number in any one of them, unless of course you know the mind of God, which you do not and cannot know.

[bookofmormontruth]

When did it all of a sudden become ethical to "test" G-d and His ways without His written informed consent?

[Brian 2.0]

In short, you cannot know or judge when and how God works, making your statistical model meaningless since you cannot in any sense of the word classify how and when He worked.

Or... you choose not to discuss the statistical model any further and simply call it meaningless and discredit the approach without reasons that have not been answered by myself and others.

if you don't want to talk about this anymore then you can just stop discussing it, I won't post asking why you having responded. What I don't appreciate having you criticise the model specifically, and then I answer those criticisms specifically, then you generally dismiss it as "meaningless" without any specifics. That's just poor form.

[Brian 2.0]

Your list of presumptions are what I considered muddled. It seems somewhat obvious.

Sigh.... I hate to burst your bubble but lets look at the classifications

1-The group isn't irrelevant because it would be a control group. If you worked in statistics you would know why there is a need for a control group.

2-Two is not the same for both catagories since you cannot know when they get better due to God's intercession and when they get better as a matter of course. Among other things you cannot know if they got better because God provided inspiration to the Doctor to do something different (inspiration does not come with a little signal flare saying its from God). Or because a treatment was developed prior to the person getting better which was also inspired of God. Since you cannot classify one or the other, you cannot state with any catagorical precision whether or not to place them in your second box.

3-Sometimes God does not heal, whether asked or not.

4-You also forgot that God does heal people without their needing to ask. Therefore you again cannot know if God healed someone because they asked, or because God Himself decided it was needed. In other words in some cases they don't need to ask. People often ask God and God sometimes does not heal even though He is asked.

Each one of your presemptions is a sieve with so many holes in it you cannot with surety keep a statistical number in any one of them, unless of course you know the mind of God, which you do not and cannot know.

You are not understand why I listed out the groups. They are not separate control and experimental groups.

The CONTROL set did not do priesthood blessing

The TEST set DID do a priesthood blessing.

In BOTH of these sets there will be people from Groups #1, #2, and #3. But Group #4 Will ONLY be in the TEST set. So that should be observable

[Jeff K.]

Take a statistics class son. You don't know what you are talking about.

If you cannot differentiate the results, then in no way can you state catagorically which healings were done with the Lord's influence and which weren't. Priesthood blessings are not required for the Lord to be involved.

Think about it.

[Jeff K.]

If you understood the purpose of the priesthood you would know that your statistical analysis would not work.

[elguanteloko]

You are not understand why I listed out the groups. They are not separate control and experimental groups.

The CONTROL set did not do priesthood blessing

The TEST set DID do a priesthood blessing.

In BOTH of these sets there will be people from Groups #1, #2, and #3. But Group #4 Will ONLY be in the TEST set. So that should be observable

Have another group with people who get blessings from atheists; like a placebo. I'll volunteer.

[Brian 2.0]

Sigh.... I hate to burst your bubble but lets look at the classifications

1-The group isn't irrelevant because it would be a control group. If you worked in statistics you would know why there is a need for a control group.

Group #1 is not meant to be a control group. It's a set of people. These people God will not intervene with to heal, despite all, if any efforts. If they pray/blessing/etc. God will not heal them because for whatever reason he is not going to intervene. For those that do no pray/bessing/etc. there result will be the same. They didn't ask God or get a blessing, but it wouldn't have mattered if they did, because it wasn't in God's will to do anything about it.

2-Two is not the same for both catagories since you cannot know when they get better due to God's intercession and when they get better as a matter of course. Among other things you cannot know if they got better because God provided inspiration to the Doctor to do something different (inspiration does not come with a little signal flare saying its from God). Or because a treatment was developed prior to the person getting better which was also inspired of God. Since you cannot classify one or the other, you cannot state with any catagorical precision whether or not to place them in your second box.

It doesn't matter that you cannot "know when they get better due to God's intercession and when they get better as a matter of course." That's the whole point of this classification set. These people are going to get better whether or not they had a priesthood blessing. WITHOUT ASKING God could have intervened in ANY way he wished to help heal this person. These pepole also could have gotten better by chance/medicine/or other means without God intervention. Either way, this group of people are going to recover regardless of what they do, blessing or not, from God or not. For this classification, the blessing was not a factor in their recovery, if it was they would be in #4 (remember, this group does NOT contain people from #4)

3-Sometimes God does not heal, whether asked or not.

Don't know why you are saying this about #3, because it is exactly what group #1 is. Group #3 is people that God is willing to heal and grant that blessing if they do the work to obtain it by ask/pray/fast/blessing/having enough faith/Temple roll, but they do NOT do this work, hence are not healed.

4-You also forgot that God does heal people without their needing to ask. Therefore you again cannot know if God healed someone because they asked, or because God Himself decided it was needed. In other words in some cases they don't need to ask.

I didn't forget this AT ALL. This is what Group #2 is.

People often ask God and God sometimes does not heal even though He is asked.

This is Group #1

Each one of your presemptions is a sieve with so many holes in it you cannot with surety keep a statistical number in any one of them, unless of course you know the mind of God, which you do not and cannot know.

Each on of your understandings of my grouping is what have holes in it. I'm trying to have us come to an understanding of these groups. I'll try to restate:

1) People whom God isn't going to heal despite all spiritual efforts: That would be the same for people getting blessings or not getting blessings.

2) People who are going to get better, whether they asked for it or not: Could be my God's will, or could be by other natural means, but getting a blessing had no effect on the healing. That would be the same for people getting blessings or not getting blessings.

3) People whom God will NOT heal BECAUSE people didn't ask/pray/fast/blessing/having enough faith/Temple roll but would have if they had done one or more of those things

4) People whom God WILL heal BECAUSE people DID ask/pray/fast/blessing/have enough faith/Temple roll, but would NOT HAVE HEALED if they didn't ask.

[Brian 2.0]

Take a statistics class son. You don't know what you are talking about.

If you cannot differentiate the results, then in no way can you state catagorically which healings were done with the Lord's influence and which weren't. Priesthood blessings are not required for the Lord to be involved.

Think about it.

I don't NEED to categorically state which healing were done with the Lord's influence and which weren't. IF there are ANY healings which were brought about by the Lord BECAUSE of a Priesthood blessing, and those healings would NOT have happened without a blessing (group #4) then it will show up in the statistical analysis.

Yes, priesthood blessings are not required for the Lord to be involved. I agree with that in Group #2. If Group #4 exists, then it should show up in statistical analysis.

I guess my question is do you believe Groups #3 and #4 exist. People who God is ready and willing to heal by some means IF they get a priesthood blessing. If they do not get a blessing, they will not recover, if they do get a blessing, they will.

I'm not asking you to be able to determine WHO these people ACTUALLY are. That is impossible. But the fact that those people exist.

[Brian 2.0]

Take a statistics class son. You don't know what you are talking about.

If you cannot differentiate the results, then in no way can you state catagorically which healings were done with the Lord's influence and which weren't. Priesthood blessings are not required for the Lord to be involved.

Think about it.

I am not the one is need of a statistics class.

This type of testing is done all the time for medicines. Take an Ibuprofen being tested to see it's effectiveness in reducing swelling.

CONTROL group gets a placebo

TEST group gets real Ibuprofen

Of all of those people there are:

#1: People who's swelling will NOT have gone down regardless of if they have the Ibuprofen or placebo

#2: People who's swelling WILL go down regardless of if they had Ibuprofen or not

#3: People who's swelling WOULD have gone down with Ibuprofen, but they had the placebo, so their swelling DIDN'T go down

#4: People who's swelling WOULD have gone down with Ibuprofen, and they had the real pill, so their swelling DID go down.

The statistician's don't need state categorically which people's swelling went down due to ibuprofen or due to natural causes. They look at the results form the Control and Test and IF there is a statistical advantage in reduced swelling in the Test group, then that shows then groups #3 and #4 exist and it's a viable drug. If there is no statistical advantage in the Test group, then Group #3 and #4 don't exist and the drug has no effect on reducing swelling.

I am not trying to test for the existence of God, anymore than this test is a test of the existence of "reduced swelling". This test if for ibuprofen's effect on reduce swelling, that's it. My test is the Priesthood blessing's effect on physical healing, that's it.

[Jeff K.]

Brian you really don't understand....

Group #1 is not meant to be a control group. It's a set of people. These people God will not intervene with to heal, despite all, if any efforts. If they pray/blessing/etc. God will not heal them because for whatever reason he is not going to intervene. For those that do no pray/bessing/etc. there result will be the same. They didn't ask God or get a blessing, but it wouldn't have mattered if they did, because it wasn't in God's will to do anything about it.

In other words, you won't know the effects or who is effects. Yeah, great control group.

If God chooses not to heal for whatever reason, you don't know why, and therefore you cannot gauge either cause or effect.

For those who do not pray or whatever, the result will NOT be the same because the Lord might intervene based on his will, not the will of mere mortal trying to play with statistics.

So if God does intervene, your control group is gone.

It doesn't matter that you cannot "know when they get better due to God's intercession and when they get better as a matter of course." That's the whole point of this classification set. These people are going to get better whether or not they had a priesthood blessing. WITHOUT ASKING God could have intervened in ANY way he wished to help heal this person. These pepole also could have gotten better by chance/medicine/or other means without God intervention. Either way, this group of people are going to recover regardless of what they do, blessing or not, from God or not. For this classification, the blessing was not a factor in their recovery, if it was they would be in #4 (remember, this group does NOT contain people from #4)

Sigh, you believe somehow that the priesthood blessing obligates God to act, it does not. And for this classification the blessing may matter and it may not. God may choose to bless them without asking. A priesthood holder may pray to bless them without asking.

Do you get it yet? Or are you still floundering. You won't even be able to determine whether someone belongs in that class or not.

[Jeff K.]

Your lack of understanding the priesthood is your greatest weakness. You realize a blessing need not require the laying on of hands, or even proximity. A priesthood holder can bless anyone from anywhere. So when you say...

People who God is ready and willing to heal by some means IF they get a priesthood blessing. If they do not get a blessing, they will not recover, if they do get a blessing, they will.

You fail to realize you will never be able to determine any of the groups. God acts as he will. Priesthood blessings are for our benefit, not the Lord's. They are for us to serve our fellowman. Blessings can sometimes be predicated upon our worthiness and not always the person being blessed, something to help us learn. Blessings can be predicated to help those in need to show us the importanc of being worthy to bless as much as being worthy to recieve blessings.

I appreciate the arrogance of the ignorant when it comes thinking they can come up with some wag theory and actually believing they can make it work, the trouble is your theory doesn't work. You won't be able to determine the groups, and the groups will interchange so often and so much that it will be the equivalent of a reset after each individual blessing. And in statistics, if you can't determine the groups, then you cannot determine the effects since you won't know what the groups are.

Hate to tell you, God is smarter than you. Nor are you the first statistician to come up with a similar idea, nor has real statisticians ever been able to carry out the process you propose.

Other than those issues and so many more, I am sure you are going to be able to measure the effects of God and his priesthood upon mankind.

[Jeff K.]

Have another group with people who get blessings from atheists; like a placebo. I'll volunteer.

Since athiests cannot bless but play act they of course reflect, shall we say the equivalent of action figure barbie dolls where the priesthood is concerned.

[Robert F. Smith]

Since athiests cannot bless but play act they of course reflect, shall we say the equivalent of action figure barbie dolls where the priesthood is concerned.

I'm sure that there is a rule somewhere that says that athiests cannot bless. Could you please apprise me of it?

By the way, could you give me your evaluation of the following? Thanks.

http://www.lds4u.com...n1/bayesian.htm

http://en.wikipedia....icacy_of_prayer

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html