MUSINGS ON IRAQ: U.S. Boots On The Ground In Iraq, Advisers Deployed To Anbar And Diyala

MUSINGS ON IRAQ: U.S. Boots On The Ground In Iraq, Advisers Deployed To Anbar And Diyala

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 2:125-126

I was unable to verify your next reference, since the link you provide only takes one to the newly-designed front page of the "Skeptical Inquirer", where I get another 404 error message. You don't even supply a link to support your comment that follows, 

"This study was later proven to be completely fraudulent. However, everyone who cut out the original article in the NYTimes and posted it on their refrigerators still has that article as "proof" that prayer works."

So how, exactly, was the study proven fraudulent, by whom, in what manner, or am I just supposed to take your rather questionable word for it? No thanks.

As for your next  link (of which you claim proof of fraudulence), all I see is a re-visitation of a rather famous case of a study that apparently proves the effectiveness of "long-distance praying", a concept which in all honesty, I have to admit to being a sceptic myself. Nowhere in this article, however, does it claim that the study was ever proven fraudulent. I have no idea what you saw in the article, but I'll leave the final decision as to what theory it supports, up to any reader that chooses to peruse it for themselves.

 Your last reference links us to an article about the lack of benefit, of "optimism", which is yet another article that disproves its own theory in the last paragraph that it contains,

"It is disappointing they don't reflect on quality of life," McGinnis said. "We did not have any illusions that optimism influences therapy but we do believe that optimism and hope does influence the quality of life a patient has." (Emphasis mine.)

An improvement in the patient's "quality of life" is still a result, and as such, it can't be proven by this article that prayer has no effect. Rather, it just proves that what was lacking, was the result the practitioners were hoping for.

It must also be noted that the remainder of this "proof" of yours centers on claims that appear to indicate, that you are still referring to the above-given reference site, when in fact, the article makes no mention of "superstition" or "coincidence" at all. Once again, it seems to me ,you are trying to pass your opinion off as supported fact, without showing any of the support which you make claim to.

And all I can say about the argument you present at the bottom of your page in the box entitled "Understanding The Rationalizations", is that you would first have to show me the "many" believers who would even say such a thing. The statement, as it stands, "...because God must remain hidden..." is ludicrous at best, and is easily proven to be so by the following Scripture,

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Romans 1:20

So unless you can show me a Christian who neither believes in Creation, or the Holy Word, I'm just going to have to chalk this up to another of your many opinions, unsupported by any actual fact.

Since this brings us to the start of another of your so-called proofs, we will submit this Blog entry, short as it is, and pick up our discussion tomorrow.

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 2:120-125

In regard to the first three stipulations that you offer in support of your view, we can respond with "facts" of our own. 

You claim that :

- It does not matter who prays.

-It does not matter if we pray to God, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra or any other human god.

-It does not matter what we pray about.

I won't dispute the given designations in your second point since I see all of the offered names as possible names for God, depending on where and when the person lived, how they had been trained in Spirituality, and the particular environment they were/are surrounded by. It is much more important to me to know if these people were/are sincere in their search for a higher power, and less important what names they may refer to that Power as. But I certainly disagree with your unsubstantiated claim that it doesn't matter, as though you are simply negating all those possibilities out of hand. How could you, as an unbeliever, know what would, or would not matter, since you are incapable of offering a prayer to any of them? Without any genuine experience, just what is your claim based on?

Your first and third stipulations, on the other hand, I would dispute, if I hadn't already spent over a hundred manuscript pages doing just that, and clearly showing that it does indeed matter who is praying, as well as what they pray about. There is no reason to re-examine the same matters all over again. If you are uncertain what I'm talking about, just re-read the section above which is headed "The Non-Supporting Scriptures". So once again, the questions remain, "On just what facts are you basing these arrogant statements, and how could you possibly know that nothing has happened in response to any prayer prayed anywhere?". For an individual who claims not to believe in a higher power, you certainly are trying very hard to prove your own omniscience, a concept I'm just not buying.

The next paragraph in your argument is yet another striking instance (despite its general redundancy) of how you try to substitute your own personal opinion, and examples that lack any sense of certainty, for what you then claim as "proof", or "fact" in your articles. I will include an excerpt of this paragraph, so that anyone reading this has no need (after an initial verification) to keep flipping back and forth between our pages.

"If we perform scientific, double-blind tests on prayer, and if the prayers involve something concrete and measurable (for example, healing people with cancer), we know that there is zero effect from prayer. Every single "answered prayer" is nothing more than a coincidence. Both scientific experiments and your everyday observations of the world show this to be the case every single time."

Since, as I stated earlier, I have already answered the argument you offer, yet once again, in the first part of this paragraph, we can begin with the statement you make at the end of the first sentence, "we know that there is zero effect from prayer". And you would know this...how? I mean, your statement is quite clear. "We know" is another way of saying, "we possess the knowledge", and "zero effect" is another way of saying "no effect" which implies "anywhere, in any way, of any kind". Wow, if I was to take that as stated, then you know more than any other human being that ever lived, past or present. Truly, you are the omniscient one, and I have finally met the god that I have been searching for, for so long now. Of course, this brings your "proof" crashing down around your omnipotent ankles, since your argument is not that you are a god, but that there isn't any God. 

In any scientific experiment that I have heard of, that is even remotely similar to the ones you suggest a little further on in your argument, the practitioners realize, even if you don't, that they have to allow for an error of roughly 5% (even more in many cases), in order that the placebo effect can be accounted for. Since you claim that you have absolute knowledge that the experiments you mention were 100% accurate in proving that "answered prayer" was a myth, then I have to conclude, that in the absence of any answered prayers at all, what those experiments actually seem to prove, is the existence of a Being of such magnitude and amazing power, that he could mask His existence at will, in absolutely every case where it may be called into question. It would seem that what your statements prove, is that God exists , but that He was just unaware that He should have allowed for the placebo effect. I suppose that would be because even though God could create an entire universe by speaking, He still wouldn't understand modern medicine. Lol.

Well, I can't verify, or disprove the first example that you supply. This is simply because your "link" merely takes me to a page where I could actually read the article in question only if I was willing to subscribe to, or purchase from,  the "Boston Globe", the piece that you refer to. I am not prepared to do either, but neither am I willing to accept your word for anything that you can't verify in a more acceptable manner.

The second "article" that you provide a link to, returns a 404 error, which means that no article of that nature exists at the location given. At this point, I must admit to being quite disappointed in the supposed supports for your already indefensible position.

Now in your third attempt at providing support, there actually does exist, the article by which you choose to do so. That is a good start. However, the first comment you make is blatantly false, and I am left wondering if you thought that any Christian who might read this would be just too stupid to notice. Here is your comment:

"In this article we find an amazing quote where theologians and religious leaders declare that prayer has no actual effect:"

I have highlighted the part of your comment with which I take exception, and a quick look at the paragraph that you are quoting will show us why:

"Religious leaders will breathe a sigh of relief at the news that so-called intercessory prayer is medically ineffective. In a large and much touted scientific study, one group of patients was told that strangers would pray for them, a second group was told strangers might or might not pray for them, and a third group was not prayed for at all. The $2.4 million study found that the strangers' prayers did not help patients' recovery."

You will notice that nowhere in this paragraph given above do we see anything about religious leaders declaring that prayer has no actual effect. What the paragraph does state is that the writer of the article "feels" that religious leaders will breath a sigh of relief, when they discover that prayer is "medically ineffective", a statement that is in itself refuted later in the same article where it states:

"The news from science will not lead religious people to stop praying for others. Prayers are expressions of empathy that strengthen a caring community and bring comfort to those who are suffering. Comfort in this context undoubtedly has therapeutic health benefits." (Emphasis mine.)

And maybe, it is this "comfort" that they receive, which is the very answer to prayer that you say doesn't exist. I would be interested to know how you feel such a "spiritual" benefit could ever be tested for through scientific means that are designed to work only with the physical realm. Let me save you the trouble of such mental exertion by telling you here and now that it just isn't possible, which is why your entire suggestion that we "statistically analyze prayer" simply, does not hold water.

It will also serve to prove your error, in citing this article as  support for your position, if we take a look at the last paragraph in the piece you refer to. Obviously the writer is demonstrating his own sense of the "limitations" of science when he writes:

"We should note that the impetus for this recent research has come almost entirely from scientists, not from religious leaders. It seems that no credible theologian has been involved in planning, directing or even consulting on such studies. But scientists who conduct research on religious practice should at least consult reputable theologians. Had they done so to begin with a considerable amount of money could have been saved. Scientists who undertake the work of theologians are as reckless as theologians who pretend to be scientists." (Emphasis mine.)

The entire next paragraph in your "proof" is simply a restating of that which you have already claimed, and which we have proven to be in error.

"This is a remarkable example of "positive spin" -- religious leaders are "breathing a sigh of relief" because prayer has been shown to be meaningless. The fact that prayer is a total waste of time does not matter to them. It does not matter that all of Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible have been proven completely false." (Emphasis mine.)

Each of the three items I have highlighted above are examples of gross exaggeration at best, and deliberate attempts at deception at worst. And even the statement about religious leaders "breathing a sigh of relief" is nothing more than the writer's opinion, since as the article itself makes quite clear, no reputable theologians were consulted during this "experiment". So how could he possibly know for certain that theologians were in any way relieved by the results of a study that they never took part in? It appears that up to this point at least, all we have are exaggeration and opinion, but no solid proof of any kind. Maybe we will find some when we resume tomorrow.

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:115-120

So here we are, two words into your latest "proof", and already we come up against another case of "required definition" (one of the main problems when dealing with "personal opinions"). In what way exactly, are you using the word "fact"? As you can clearly see below from the included "Wikipedia" excerpt, there exist several definitions of that word, depending on the context in which it is found. Now we've already, in the earlier parts of this work, ascertained your personal difficulties in remaining in context when dealing with someone else's writing, so maybe, after we take a quick look at the "Wikipedia" entry, I could offer my services in helping you to determine the context of your own writing. In the following Wikipedia excerpt, all cases of emphasis are my own.

"The word fact derives from the Latin factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.^[1] The common usage of "something that has really occurred or is the case" dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.^[2]

Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. This use is found in such phrases as, It is a fact that the cup is blue or Matter of fact,^[3] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."

Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").^[4][5]

Alternatively, fact may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",^[6] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.^[7]

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.^[8] This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").^[9]

Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. Roger Bacon wrote,

"If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."^[10]"

Now you may claim you are utilizing the word "fact" in any one, or more, of the looser forms allowed for in the above definitions, but I would have to point out that that would not appear to be true. I suggest that there is only one of the multiple definitions that you can claim to be making use of, and that is the definition I have highlighted in red. My reason for this statement is very simple; the title of your "proof". Within that title, you suggest that we "Statistically analyze prayer".

The word "statistically" is the adverbial form of the word "statistical'" which means quite simply "pertaining to statistics", and in turn, the word "statistics" is defined as, "the branch of mathematics that deals with the organization, analysis, collection, and interpretation of statistical data[1]" If you are in fact claiming to "statistically" analyze prayer, you have placed yourself outside the realm of opinion, and into the realm of the scientific (mathematics is a scientific discipline), which restricts you to using the more limited, and precise meaning of the word "fact", that I have highlighted in the "Wikipedia" definition previously given. Your own stated words are, "The fact is, God never answers any prayers" and in addition to that you make claim to the idea that the concept of "answered prayer" is an "illusion".

 So now, the onus is on you, to prove your statements of "fact". Otherwise, your opening statement fails, and takes your entire "proof" with it. On the other hand, all I have to do, is prove that your opening comment is not completely accurate, thus reducing it to a matter of opinion, not fact , and once again, your "proof" fails. And remember, you specifically said, "God never answers any prayer." So now, it's time to look closer at what you have offered in support of your statements of supposed "fact".

You make the claim that the concept of "answered prayer" is nothing but an "illusion", and state that this can be proved by scientific experiment. You then, once again, suggest the same method that you suggested in "Proof #1" (which means that this is not a second proof at all, only a re-working of the first). Well, I have already shown in my rebuttal of that previous suggestion, sufficient reason why that method simply will not work, and there is no reason to state those views all over again. So let us try this from a different angle, and concentrate on your claim of ability to prove anything by scientific experiment.

To start with, let us take a look at the views of those who apparently know a lot more about the "scientific method" and its limitations than you do. The following excerpt is a simple one, taken from an internet article, which you can peruse by following the given link:

 "...In fact, all scientific theories are unprovable...".

The author of this particular site is apparently a man of science, stating a simple truth (or at least his opinion of the truth). The excerpt that follows, on the other hand, is in itself a reasonable question, presumably from a man of faith, and once again you can follow the link to read it for yourself.

"If science can't even disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God?" - Gregory Koukl. 

The author of the site in question, also states in the same article,

 "Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything." (Emphasis mine.)

Just to show you how far I can take this idea, consider this. Suppose it was the intention of an individual such as yourself to prove to me by experimentation, that the active (turned on) element on a stove-top was "hot". They further add, they can prove this in a number of experimental ways including the following. A thermometer placed in contact with the element would easily show a high temperature, which is the accepted definition of hot. To which I answer, "No, that is an incorrect assumption, since what it really shows is that the temperature is higher than what might be considered cold by some. But "hot", and "higher", are relative terms. That element is far colder than the surface of the sun for instance, or even burning phosphorous. Therefore, it is only "hot" in comparison to certain other things.

Alright, they tell me, then it can be substantiated by having some brave individual actually touch it, and they will surely report that it is hot. To which I answer yet again, "No, that is another incorrect assumption, which I, in this case can attempt to prove, by referring them to the following quote from yet another internet article (to which I have also provided the link).

 "Across the world about a few hundred people suffer from one of a variety of diseases that make them completely unable to feel pain from the time they're born." 

To these individuals, owing to their absence of extreme sensation, the element would appear to be neutral in its relation to hot or not hot. And remember, these people still have some concept of hot and cold. For instance, they would still be able to tell the difference between warm and cool weather conditions, since those conditions are usually not severe enough to elicit from the offended nerve-endings, a pain response. To support this specific claim, I refer you again to another quote from the same article as that which is offered above.  

"These people were able to feel hot and cold, sense pressure, and could tell sharp objects touching their skin from blunt ones... But none of them felt any pain."

 

So in the end, it would seem that the only thing that can be said for sure is that "hot", like "cold", and virtually every other sensation you can name, is never a matter of "fact", but one of "perception". And perception varies with the individual. All that can really be stated in this case is that a stove-top element is at many times going to be perceived as hot, but not in all cases, or by all individuals. Thus, "hot" becomes a matter of  personal opinion, that depends entirely on the context in which it exists, and it cannot be called "fact", in the sense of something that seeks to be as exact as science. And that is where we will pick this up tomorrow.

---

[1] "Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary", Berkley Books, New York, 1984, p.673

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 2:112-115

Erroneous Proof #2

Statistically Analyze Prayer

Before we dive right into analyzing that which you offer as "proof" in this instance, it must be noted that I will have to approach this task, in a manner quite a bit different than that which we dealt with earlier. The obvious reason for this, is that unlike the way you presented your first argument, you have this time offered no supporting Scriptures, misquoted, misused, altered, or of any other nature. This entire "proof" (#2) of yours consists of nothing but opinion. So let us first take a look at a few definitions by which you may want to enlarge your personal vocabulary:

Proof:[1]

- Evidence that establishes the truth, or validity of something[2]

- The act of testing the truth or validity of something by experiment or trial[3]

- A way or means of showing beyond doubt the truth of something[4]

- The condition of having been tested and approved[5]

Opinion:

- A belief held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge[6]

- An appraisal or judgement formed in the mind about the truth, or probability of something[7]

So quite clearly, "opinion" is not "proof". And another point that must be considered here is the fact that in spite of everyone having an opinion, it is quite obvious that not all opinions are created equal. If I truly wanted to be informed by the opinion of another, in relation to a particular subject, it would certainly be in my best interest to seek out the thoughts of one who was an acknowledged expert in that discipline, with a lengthy history of, or participation in, that given subject of study. The very idea of accepting opinions about the Christian faith from one who has only very limited, or no experience in that area, flies in the face of that exact principle.

The only experience of yours that I have seen to date is your experience in attempting to denigrate a subject of which you apparently have very, very little first-hand knowledge, and also, your experience at allegedly attacking a lady's web-site who wasn't even addressing you, but rather, others who held a specific belief in common with her. As I mentioned previously, I myself may not be in total agreement with the stated intent of that web-site in question, but I would never attack her views, or attempt to exploit her site, in the manner described, just as I am not attacking your web-page, which I am definitely in total disagreement with. The things I have written, and shall yet write, on these pages, are merely my way of answering your charges that I, and every other Christian, is delusional, believing in a God who, even though you claim to disbelieve in Him, you have apparently no problem with calling a liar. Thus, it can't be said that I am attacking you, but rather, offering a defense of my faith.

I suspect that I could just end, right here, my rebuttal of this specific non-proof of yours, since anyone reading this, just has to take a quick glance at your page to see exactly what I mean about how it tries to substitute opinion for proof. But I stress once again, that attempting to change your opinion, regarding anything (much less your own web-page), is not my primary concern in the writing of this rebuttal. My actual interest lies more in the area of possibly offering support to any of my younger brothers and sisters in Christ, who may in any way feel threatened, or confused, by the things you have claimed on your site. I have no doubt that they would find that encouragement for themselves, given sufficient growth in their relationship to God, but if I can offer even a band-aid in the meantime, I am willing to hear the call of the Spirit to do so. And with all that said, we shall proceed tomorrow.

---

[1] All emphasis in these two sets of definitions are mine.

[2] "Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary", Berkley Books, New York, 1984, p.561

[3] Ibid

[4] "Gage Canadian Dictionary", Walter S. Avis et al., Gage Learning Corporation, Toronto, 1983, p.901

[5] Ibid

[6] "Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary", Berkley Books, New York, 1984, p.493

[7] "Gage Canadian Dictionary", Walter S. Avis et al., Gage Learning Corporation, Toronto, 1983, p.796

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:109-112

So, at any rate, amidst high hopes that the remainder of your presentation would consist of something a little more challenging, and realistic, than your first "Proof", I re-read the introduction to your site, and came across what I see as your first small admission that even you are aware that your individual articles may not be entirely up to snuff, so to speak. It seems I missed, in that initial glance at your web-page, a small paragraph, set apart from the main body of the introduction. (I also investigated, a little more in-depth, the actual truth regarding a much larger, and coloured-for-emphasis box sitting below that isolated paragraph which we will discuss shortly). In the paragraph that I'm referring to at the moment, however, you tell people that they could start reading your pages at Proof #1, as I did, or, they might "try these five all-time favourites:". Well, there are indeed five of your "proofs" highlighted in that place, though what appears to be lacking is any explanation as to just what makes them "all-time favourites". Do you mean they are your all-time favourites? If it's your readers "favourites" you are referring to, do I just take your word for it, or is there something you can offer to substantiate that claim?

To tell you the truth, in reference to this claim that you make, I wouldn't even have thought to ask you the questions above, except, as I just mentioned, I did a little investigating on that larger information box below the one we are discussing, and what I discovered in my investigations, is the questionable honesty with which you appear to operate. Shame on you. (I was originally going to include a copy of the actual box here, but a description should suffice nicely.) 

As I already said, the box itself has a coloured background which appears to be for emphasis since the non-coloured portion of the page is easy enough to read without the additional coloring. The top two lines of text inside the box, are formatted and worded as follows:

Coverage in the

New York Times

This is followed by:

GodIsImaginary.com

has been mentioned

in the New York

Times:

And at the bottom of the box, a link:

"If You Post It, They

Will Pray"

Now owing to the bold typeface of the first two lines, it is natural that this should be the first thing seen. It sounds impressive, the "New York Times" apparently covered your modest little website. It clearly says "Coverage".

The second block of words is not so impressive, however, without the bold typeface to make it stand out, but in actuality, this is the statement of truth. Contrary to what your headline reads, there was no coverage of note of your site in the "New York Times", but merely, as the second block of words points out, a simple mention. But possibly even that would be a positive thing, depending on how extensive that mention was, and what subject pertaining to your site was actually mentioned.

Following the link, however, takes us to a 2-page article in the "New York Times", from Nov./2008, dealing with web-sites that offer people the prayers of others in support of matters that they are presently concerned with. Maybe not exactly my cup of tea, but well-intentioned at least, and seeking to be of service to others. A noble endeavor! The only mention of your site is when the lady being interviewed (the true focus of the article) mentions that some "militant atheists" were attempting to exploit her site to spread their views, and rather than offer prayer to those who requested it, were referring those people, in some cases, to "GodIsImaginary.com". I will add, in all fairness, that the reporter did add a single sentence to the mention in question, but it's rather vague, and I can't even be certain exactly what the writer was saying:

"The site urges nonbelievers to spread the word by posting links to Godisimaginary on forums, blogs and news groups."

I suppose he might have been saying that non-believers could spread the word of Atheism by posting to your site, but the way I see it, that would result more in a centralization of Atheistic viewpoints (gathering them together in one place) than a spreading of those same ideas. Like I said, the sentence is quite vague, most likely the reflection of the reporter's total lack of interest in your site, though he made an effort to clarify what the lady who was his true subject was trying to say.

The point I'm actually trying to make, however, is that your claim to "Coverage in the New York Times" is about as realistic as it would be for "The New York Times" to claim coverage on my Blog, simple because I mentioned them a couple of times just now. And for you to boast of the mention that you did get is roughly the equivalent of bragging to the world that you had done some modeling in your day, and then showing them a mug-shot of yourself as proof. Hardly the type of ethics that any writer should aspire to. Again I say, shame on you.

As to what I personally feel is probably the truth concerning your "5 All-time Favourites", it's quite simple really. I suspect that their lofty classification is attained simply by the merit of what you feel are the 5 best examples of your own work.  And in that, I find myself quite willing to accept your assessment, and since it would truly be a lot more interesting to tackle a decent argument, rather than simply more of the silliness that made up Proof #1, I have decided to discuss next, those 5 of your "Proofs" that you have highlighted. Depending on just what we find there, we can decide later if there is any reason to continue with the remaining articles[1].

---

[1] Having just scanned the first of your 5 "all-time favourites", however, I have to fear I am going to be greatly disappointed. This argument of yours, "Statistically Analyze Prayer" is far inferior to the argument we just dealt with. You have apparently stepped away from even attempting to offer any evidence, and have decided instead to seek shelter within the total inanity of you own opinion, bolstered only by selective references to any other opinions you could find, that you feel support your own.

50 Erroneous Proofs of God's Non-Existence 1:105-109

When I spoke yesterday of knowing the things of God that we need to know, It was not my intention to limit our relationship to our Saviour in any unscriptural way. Though I may not agree with the concept, there is apparently some (though not much) Biblical support for the idea that Jesus, despite the entire concept of the Trinity (the three-in-one Nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) may not, for reasons which I don't claim to understand, have total knowledge of the Father's mind. Consider the following, which is an excerpt from 1 Corinthians that is part of the same speech by Paul, as that which we quoted in yesterday's instalment:

"...but God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."

1 Corinthians 2:10-11

At least a few people have grasped on to the fact that the Scripture states "except the Spirit of God", but does not explicitly include Jesus in that exception. They add to this the fact that Jesus cried out to the Father, while He (Jesus) hung on The Cross, 

 

"...My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Mark 15:34b

and they claim this also shows that Jesus was not privy to every thought in the Father's mind.

Myself, I think it is one of those conversations that seem to serve no other purpose than to create division, and if there is anything to it at all, it is probably one of those "deep things" of God, better left to the searching of the Spirit, or at the very least, left to the study of men more educated than myself.

So, to carry on. It would appear that you have offered no specific comments for the four references that complete this so-called proof of yours (they are mainly redundant anyway), but rather than just end your first argument here, you add some final comments, sacrilegious insult, a nifty diagram, and an entire boxed section entitled "Understanding The Rationalities", which in and of itself, just may be one of the most irrational and convoluted pieces of writing I have ever witnessed.  All of this at the bottom of the page. Yet in the first paragraph of those same closing comments you offer a rather self-centered affirmation to your readers of how nothing could be simpler or clearer than the evidence you have provided in your proof. Well if your previously-given proof as you call it is so clear, why did you feel the necessity to offer all this other fluff which is truly nothing more than a repetitious, re-working of the same faulty arguments that you made in the main body of this page.

 Since I have no inclination to answer the same arguments all over again, I will just by-pass that entire section, leaving it up to any who are so motivated to do so, to read those comments on their own. They can easily find my refutations of each and every one of the points you try to hammer home at the bottom of this page, in my comments given above. As for the "evidence" that you claim is so clear, well, as we have seen, that is not any kind of evidence at all, but a bunch of misquoted Scriptures mixed in with unsubstantiated personal opinion from a writer, who, quite plainly, has no idea of what the subject he has chosen to write about, truly consists of. And that is the only thing about your whole "proof" that is clear. Of course, that's my opinion, and in all fairness, we should leave the actual judging up to those who might choose to read our pages. 

An Interlude, and Explanation of Process

 

As I sat here considering the ponderous amount of writing yet ahead of me in my remaining rebuttal of your web-page, "God Is Imaginary", I began to despair somewhat, as I remembered that my primary perusal of your site had seemed to indicate that there were no "proofs" (as you call them) at all, that were presented in a manner which would  bestow upon them any significance whatsoever. Furthermore, at that time, even I didn't realize just how redundant, and absurd, an individual's argument could be.

If we just consider your Proof #1 "Try Praying", for instance (which we have just now finished discussing), it becomes quite plain, that except for my interest in trying to edify you, at least a little bit, regarding the misconceptions you are apparently so trapped within, I could simply have made what was almost my first objection (which I later tried to expand upon somewhat, for the benefit of the readers, as well as yourself), and the matter would have been very easily, and thoroughly, taken care of. After all, as your heading would indicate, your contention is that proof was arrived at because a hypothetical grouping of people, either believers, or non-believers, offered a specific prayer, which, according to you (determined by yourself in your omniscience) did not, or would not, produce the desired, or expected result, or for that matter, any result at all.

 Hopefully, you now understand that as a non-believer (one who lacks belief) you are unable to pray effectively in the first place, at least until by an act of God's Holy Spirit, you receive the power of the God-given belief/faith to do so. You yourself inadvertently pointed this very principle out again and again, by writing things in your comments such as "So if we believe...." which you clearly don't. And I even took the time to explain that a true believer could not expect one of his own prayers, if it was of such a nature, to be answered, since it could not be considered to be a prayer for "such as God has promised". Therefore, if, as an unbeliever you lack the ability of effective prayer, and if believers are confined to praying the prayers of God (of which, yours is not one), then your entire Proof #1 simply crumbles. But just in case you still don't get it, let me give you one more illustration that may (or may not) clear this matter up for you.

Suppose it was my contention to prove that a professional baseball pitcher could not possibly throw a ball with sufficient force and accuracy, to hit, in the head, and kill, another unprotected individual at a distance of 70 feet. Further, suppose that I claim I can prove this, by attempting the feat myself, or, alternately, having the people I am making this claim to, try it for themselves. In either case, I go on to tell them, either they will fail, or I will fail, and thus, my point is proven. But someone objects.

Their problem, they tell me, is that neither I, nor the others that are trying, are professional baseball players, and so we lack the special kind of ability, or training, by which to have any chance at accomplishing the given task. I, in turn, tell them to get professional baseball pitchers to attempt the feat, and they also will fail, once again proving my point. Right? WRONG!

I would have to realize the absurdity of my so-called proof for the following very simple reasons. First, the amateurs (equivalent to your non-believers), simply don't have the tools to perform the feat. So yes, they will most likely fail. (There is always the possibility of exceptions surfacing, for any number of reasons beyond our control). The professionals, on the other hand, (equivalent to your "sincere believers") certainly do possess the tools to do the job, but most likely (definitely I hope), they will lack the motivation to even try something so silly, since it is a total departure from the accepted manner in which their talents were intended to be used, not to mention, it involves harming (even killing) a fellow human being. Therefore, my so-called proof, exactly like yours, is totally ridiculous, and truly isn't worth the pixels used to display it.

At any rate, we will FINALLY conclude this rebuttal, and begin with the introduction to the next, in that which follows tomorrow. Until then...

TO BE CONTINUED............