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
