10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[Riverwind]

Fair enough. I assume we can agree that believing in a literal interpretation of the bible is irrational (but believing in some sort of deity is not necessarily irrational).

Agreed.

Still, according to Pascal, PolyNewbie should continue to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

Not what I would have expected, but it does logically follow from the things I said above. It is worth noting that rational beliefs require that costs be weighed against the benefits and we have not really discussed the costs of adopting a specific belief system.

For example, uttering a silent prayer to help deal with anger delivers a benefit without any costs. However, the man's job could be in jepordy if the man was a bus driver and his belief required that he utter the prayer out loud (because it would make the passengers really nervous). In that situation, it would be more rational to seek alternatives that address the problem without the cost of losing his job.

PolyNewbie probably does derive a benefit from his beliefs (i.e. a feeling of superiority because he 'knows' the truth that few other people believe). However, those same beliefs could trigger some really paranoid and anti-social behaviors. We don't have enough information to comment on whether the costs for PolyNewbie outweigh the benefits.

[Riverwind]

I have little trouble with deists who believe that there was an initial prime mover, for our universe, but those who claim increasingly complex and personal interactions between their deity and the universe need to offer me convincing evidence. So far none has been forthcoming.

The only real evidence that people have for a deity is the effect that the belief has on their lives. This kind of evidence is highly subjective and virtually impossible to communicate to someone else. It is, at best, correlation argument that suggests a causal effect but does not prove it. That said, this evidence is real from the perspective of the believer and there are many examples where people are substantially better off because they choose to believe in a deity.

Why do you believe there is a need for anyone to offer you convincing evidence of their deity if they are not trying to convert you?

[Figleaf]

A rational person CANNOT choose to believe in a deity. To believe something, a rational person requires being convinced, not simply suspending disbelief. They can choose to profess belief, but it would be false (as in the above situation).

Belief is a choice.

A belief based on reason is not. It is a conclusion, not a choice. A person cannot reasonably believe things that are controverted by reason. I cannot reasonably choose to believe that two sticks added to two sticks will leave me with 23 sticks.

[Figleaf]

Faith is believing in something that has not been proved.

Now I'm confused. By that definition, Faith is not rational, and yet you have been arguing the opposite at some length. Are you conceding?

[Riverwind]

A belief based on reason is not. It is a conclusion, not a choice. A person cannot reasonably believe things that are controverted by reason. I cannot reasonably choose to believe that two sticks added to two sticks will leave me with 23 sticks.

2 + 2 is defined to be 4 not 23. So there is no belief required in that situation - you are simply applying the definitions of your linguistic/mathematical framework. You could also say that you can prove that 2 + 2 not equal to 23.

A belief is required when you use evidence to draw conclusions that are not proveable. You can observe what happens when objects fall and develop a theory that explains the behavior. However, you cannot prove your theory. You are choosing to believe when you use your theory of falling objects to predict the what will happen in the future. If you make decisions based on your 'theory of falling objects' you are choosing to make a 'leap of faith'.

You can correctly argue that believing in your 'theory of falling objects' is extremely rational given the evidence available, however, you still must acknowledge that you are believing in something that is not proven (i.e. you have faith) and that you are making a choice to believe in it.

By that definition, Faith is not rational, and yet you have been arguing the opposite at some length.

Many things cannot be proven. We always look at the evidence decide whether that evidence is sufficient to justify a belief. Believing in something which is not proven requires faith. However, that does not mean faith always is irrational. Faith is only irrational when you have faith in things that have been explicitly been falsified or for which there is no evidence. (aside: most theists that I know believe that they have evidence of god working in their lives so their faith is something based on evidence).

[Electric Monk]

I have little trouble with deists who believe that there was an initial prime mover, for our universe, but those who claim increasingly complex and personal interactions between their deity and the universe need to offer me convincing evidence. So far none has been forthcoming.

I hope this isn't too off-topic (then again, threads tend to evolve), but I have trouble believing in the argument of a "prime mover" to get things started. If the "prime mover" got things started, then where did this prime mover come from?

That's the "little trouble".

I have little trouble with deists who believe that there was an initial prime mover, for our universe, but those who claim increasingly complex and personal interactions between their deity and the universe need to offer me convincing evidence. So far none has been forthcoming.

The only real evidence that people have for a deity is the effect that the belief has on their lives. This kind of evidence is highly subjective and virtually impossible to communicate to someone else. It is, at best, correlation argument that suggests a causal effect but does not prove it. That said, this evidence is real from the perspective of the believer and there are many examples where people are substantially better off because they choose to believe in a deity.

Why do you believe there is a need for anyone to offer you convincing evidence of their deity if they are not trying to convert you?

If they are not trying to convert me, I generally get along quite well with believers...and I keep my reservations about their beliefs to myself. However, given the fundamental nature of their religious beliefs to the way they view and interpret the world, and the fundamental nature of my own beliefs to my world-view, we may have irreconcilable differences of opinion even in the most casual of conversations. How we choose to deal with them is up to us.

I am sure that some believers are better off because of their beliefs, but that does not affect the rationality of their core beliefs, just as my non-belief, while benefiting me, is not made more or less rational because of that benefit.

[Figleaf]

A belief based on reason is not. It is a conclusion, not a choice. A person cannot reasonably believe things that are controverted by reason. I cannot reasonably choose to believe that two sticks added to two sticks will leave me with 23 sticks.

2 + 2 is defined to be 4 not 23.

No, that is not a matter of purely definition. Quantity is a property of reality independent of what you name the quantities.

So there is no belief required in that situation ...

That's true. It is ascertainable by reference to evidence and the application of reason.

A belief is required when you use evidence to draw conclusions that are not proveable.

I'm not sure how tight you mean by 'provable' -- recall that it is perfectly reasonable to act on probabilities where certainty cannot be attained.

You can observe what happens when objects fall and develop a theory that explains the behavior. However, you cannot prove your theory.

But you can formulate an extremely reliable predictive theoretical model that requires no substantial improvements.

If you make decisions based on your 'theory of falling objects' you are choosing to make a 'leap of faith'.

That is not the same kind of faith as religious Faith. One (science) is based on measurable, skeptically testible, conclusions from observation. The other, (religion) is based on archaic superstitions and the claims of ancient charlatans, defended by assertions of authority.

Faith is ... irrational when you have faith in things that have ... explicitly been falsified or for which there is no evidence.

Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

(aside: most theists that I know believe that they have evidence of god working in their lives so their faith is something based on evidence).

No, it is based on imagination. And the elaborate structure of claims they make is not supported by the evidence they allege. And they deny that the claims are subject to or assessible by rationality.

Ergo these beliefs are not reasonable.

[Riverwind]

No, it is based on imagination. And the elaborate structure of claims they make is not supported by the evidence they allege. And they deny that the claims are subject to or assessible by rationality.

Ergo these beliefs are not reasonable.

Let's look back at the example of the person using prayer as a tool to deal with anger management. In that situation he conducted repeatable tests that produced the same effect. Based on these observations he developed a theory regarding a deity that is supported by his evidence. His theory of a deity affecting his state of mind is no more fantastical than a theory suggesting that all matter attracts other matter with some mystic force. Therefore, you should acknowledge that it is perfectly rational for that person to believe that a diety affects his state of mind.

His theory would become irrational if he tried to extend it into areas where he had no experimental evidience. For example, it would be irrational to believe that the deity that helps him with his anger management would also help him with pick lottery numbers.

You dislike that example because you think techniques that don't require a deity should work just as well. However, you really have no basis to make that claim because every individual is different and it is ridiculous to assume that a technique that would work for one person would work for another. In this example we are already talking about a person who has trouble dealing with emotions so it is not reasonable to assume that the most obvious techniques would be effective.

The case for the rational basis of theism becomes stronger when you consider that billions of people on the planet report the same effect (i.e. belief in a deity has a positive effect on their mental state). The collective experience of those billions of people demonstrates that the phenomena is repeatable even if it is not effective for all people all of the time.

Your only real argument against these beliefs is the fact that no one can really prove that there really is a deity affecting their mental state. However, that is a rather strange argument since no one can prove that there really is a force called gravity either. We simply all agree it exists because we can see its effects.

[Figleaf]

Meanwhile, back to my responses to the OP...

4. There Are Good People on Both Sides

This is an easy one. I shouldn't lose anybody here. ...

We shall see.

... But you know good people who aren't believers. I know you do. You can't miss them. Therefore:

If God alone can deliver us from temptation, And, Some people who don't believe in God are also able to resist temptation,

Then, God must offer his protection against temptation even to some who don't believe in God.

Sweet mother of pearl! What a conclusion! If people who don't Believe are able to be good, then God isn't needed to resist "temptation" at all.

One could even say that God aids the atheist's honest desire to follow one of God's rules...

The atheist has no desire to follow religious rules. The atheist follows rules derived non-religiously. If a rule followed by an atheist

happens to be similar to a rule prescribed by a religion, that has nothing to do with the atheist's desire to follow the religion's rule.

5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them

Now, this says nothing about whether or not it's true. For this, I only ask that you understand why they get offended.

Everybody is aware that something can be both true and offensive, right? [E.g.]You see a friend holding a newborn baby and you say,

"You know, there's a chance he'll die tomorrow." ...

Atheists... It's ... irritating to [Christians] when you say they're not going to Heaven, because there is no Heaven. And the irritation happens on

the same grounds, which is, injustice. You hate the idea of all non-Christians burning for eternity, but you're telling them that the mass murderer

and kindly grandma will draw the same eternal reward (or lack of).

The thing about that is, atheists don't generally seek out people to tell such things to, they don't go door to door buttonholing people about it, and they don't

flood the airways with such material.

6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy

...So please, please, please, when we get into these atheist vs. Christian arguments, can the atheists stop acting like Christians want to abolish all science

and live in grass huts? Just because some Christians reject the science on evolution, doesn't mean they reject all science.

Hey, I've seen that exact passage somewhere already!

Anyway, atheists don't ever act like all Christians want to reject evolution. There are no examples of atheists insisting that all Christians are equally extreme. That's a strawman argument.

Now, as for those Christians who reject evolution, do they do so based on scientific grounds? No, they do so on religious grounds, and they thereby not only reject one outcome of science, they reject the whole of science as inferior to their religious Beliefs.

7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too

If you're like me, ...

I'm not.

In reality, there are very few Christians who do or even try to follow the Bible exactly, ...

Yes, it's really very hypocritical and the height of presumption when someone who doesn't even follow their own religion tries to tell others that they should be.

Word of God or not, the faith changes, adapts with the times.

Further proof that it is not really the word of any God. If it is mutable, then on what basis do Christians insist on any particular dogmas? Who are they to

assert that it may or may not be changed in one direction or another?

Atheists still tell their girlfriends they "love" them, and not that they simply feel a psychological artifact of a biochemical bond generated by the

mating instinct. They still refer to their "mind" as if it's something more than chemical switches. And remember what we talked about with "justice"

and "right" and "wrong." None of it is scientific.

Red Herring.

Remember, to a neuroscientist, free will is every bit as real as the Tooth Fairy. They can watch your neurons light up at the

moment you make moral decisions, can trace the exact electrochemical pathways.

Um, no. Neuroscience has not progressed so far.

If there is nothing beyond the physical, then your ability to choose your actions vanishes along with God and Heaven and the angels.

Um, no. Quantum mechanics' uncertainty principal can actually provide a theoretical basis for free choice.

[Figleaf]

No, it is based on imagination. And the elaborate structure of claims they make is not supported by the evidence they allege. And they deny that the claims are subject to or assessible by rationality.

Ergo these beliefs are not reasonable.

Let's look back at the example of the person using prayer as a tool to deal with anger management.

I fail to see what will be gained by revisiting an example that failed you so badly before. Repetition will not change that.

In that situation he conducted repeatable tests that produced the same effect. Based on these observations he developed a theory regarding a deity that is supported by his evidence.

As I told you when you first brought this up, that is simply wrong. Why are you restating nonsense that has already been dealt with?

Once more for those at the back, and please don't forget this time --

His theory is NOT supported by the evidence. The fact that prayer helps his anger is totally insufficient to establish that it is the supernatural intervention of a deity rather than simply the calming influence of familiar words and cadences.

The case for the rational basis of theism becomes stronger when you consider that billions of people on the planet report the same effect (i.e. belief in a deity has a positive effect on their mental state). The collective experience of those billions of people demonstrates that the phenomena is repeatable even if it is not effective for all people all of the time.

The phenomena, even if true, does not establish the attributed cause [a deity]. When investigation of the attibuted cause is carried out, further evidence cannot be found.

Your only real argument against these beliefs is the fact that no one can really prove that there really is a deity affecting their mental state. However, that is a rather strange argument since no one can prove that there really is a force called gravity either.

Come on, be serious.

[Riverwind]

As I told you when you first brought this up, that is simply wrong. Why are you restating nonsense that has already been dealt with?

You have an annoying habit of making a rediculous claim and then ignoring my rebuttal. When I pick up the topic again you act as if your original claim was never rebutted. Furthermore, I did address your criticism again in my previous post which you ignored.

His theory is NOT supported by the evidence. The fact that prayer helps his anger is totally insufficient to establish that it is the supernatural intervention of a deity rather than simply the calming influence of familiar words and cadences.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a proof and evidence. The correlation he observed is evidence even though it is not proof. Much of science is based on observing correlations and then looking for proofs. Many times it is not possible to provide a proof but a theory is still considered useful and rational if the theory can predict outcomes. His theory of a deity is rational because it fits the available evidence and it can be used to predict future outcomes (i.e. if he prays to a deity he will calm down).

The phenomena, even if true, does not establish the attributed cause [a deity]. When investigation of the attributed cause is carried out, further evidence cannot be found.

The theory is that an intangible deity is affecting the mental state of humans that believe in said deity. Why do you think there should be any physical evidence outside of the human mind?

Your only real argument against these beliefs is the fact that no one can really prove that there really is a deity affecting their mental state. However, that is a rather strange argument since no one can prove that there really is a force called gravity either.

Come on, be serious.

Let's see. You believe that all matter is held together by some magical force called gravity. No one knows why this force exists or what causes it. I am saying there is an equivalent 'theory of a deity' which affects the mental state of believers. I don't see why proposing a mystical diety is any less rational that proposing a mystical force between matter. The only question should be if the theory fits the available evidence (the diety theory does fit the available evidence) and whether it can be used to predict future outcomes (diety theory can predict outcomes).

[Electric Monk]

If I feel stressed, I just remember that I am the creator of the universe, and I immediately feel better. Is this evidence that I am the creator of the universe? Or is it evidence that believing I am, makes me feel better?

(Note that this is just an example, I do not believe anything of the sort.)

[Figleaf]

As I told you when you first brought this up, that is simply wrong. Why are you restating nonsense that has already been dealt with?

You have an annoying habit of making a rediculous claim and then ignoring my rebuttal. When I pick up the topic again you act as if your original claim was never rebutted. Furthermore, I did address your criticism again in my previous post which you ignored.

You describe precisely my experience with you.

His theory is NOT supported by the evidence. The fact that prayer helps his anger is totally insufficient to establish that it is the supernatural intervention of a deity rather than simply the calming influence of familiar words and cadences.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a proof and evidence. The correlation he observed is evidence even though it is not proof.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of evidence. He has evidence that prayer helps. He has no evidence that prayer helps because a deity is doing it.

His theory of a deity is rational because it fits the available evidence ...

It is not contradicted by the said evidence. Nor is it suggested by the evidence. On that basis alone, Ockham's Razor speaks against it.

The phenomena, even if true, does not establish the attributed cause [a deity]. When investigation of the attributed cause is carried out, further evidence cannot be found.

The theory is that an intangible deity is affecting the mental state of humans that believe in said deity. Why do you think there should be any physical evidence outside of the human mind?

I would say, axiomatically belief in a deity is a mental state. I believed you point was much more substantial than to simply say that religious people's beleifs are mental states. I'm 100% with you there.

Let's see. You believe that all matter is held together by some magical force called gravity.

Nope.

In that respect, I am convinced that a scientifically descriptive and testable theory (lets call it the theory of gravity) has been developed and promulgated, and that this theory, while not exhaustive of all questions, explains and predicts with extremely high reliability the observed behaviour of macro-scale objects.

It has nothing to do with 'magic', and it has nothing to do with 'belief' in the sense you mean it.

No one knows why this force exists or what causes it.

Irrelevant.

I am saying there is an equivalent 'theory of a deity' which affects the mental state of believers.

Yep. Religion affects the mental state of believers. No doubt about that.

But no theory of a deity I have ever heard is anywhere remotely 'equivalent' to the theory of gravity in terms of predictive precision, testability, or rational provenance.

I don't see why proposing a mystical diety is any less rational that proposing a mystical force between matter.

The force proposed between objects in the theory of gravity is not 'mystical'.

[gc1765]

You believe that all matter is held together by some magical force called gravity. No one knows why this force exists or what causes it. I am saying there is an equivalent 'theory of a deity' which affects the mental state of believers. I don't see why proposing a mystical diety is any less rational that proposing a mystical force between matter.

There are various theories as to why gravity exists, which are supported by varying amounts of evidence. We know with almost certainty that gravity exists, but we don't know what causes it. Likewise, we know that the joy experience by a believer exists, but we don't know what causes it. And like gravity, there are various possible explanations as to why, but we don't know which one is true.

So, believing that the deity is causing the effect is not equivalent to believing that gravity exists...a better comparison would be comparing it to the belief that gravity is caused by gravity waves (or any other theories of gravity)...and even that has at least some evidence to support it over other theories.

[Riverwind]

So, believing that the deity is causing the effect is not equivalent to believing that gravity exists...a better comparison would be comparing it to the belief that gravity is caused by gravity waves (or any other theories of gravity).

I can agree with that qualification. However, modern theories of gravity and the mathematical theories that explain them are modern invention. For many years gravity was presumed to be an incomprehsible mystical force. Did that make it irrational?

[Riverwind]

But no theory of a deity I have ever heard is anywhere remotely 'equivalent' to the theory of gravity in terms of predictive precision, testability, or rational provenance.

Very few scientific theories related to biology have the precision and testability of gravity. Most theories related to the effect of various medicines on the body are imprecise because the same medicine won't work in the same way for every person.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of evidence. He has evidence that prayer helps. He has no evidence that prayer helps because a deity is doing it.

Newton had no evidence that gravity existed but he still explained his theory by proposing that a mystical force between objects existed. If you experience positive outcomes as a result of prayer then it is rational to presume that is a result of deity.

Frankly, I think it is irrational to reject the possibility of deity if you confine the scope of this deity's effect to the mental state of the believers. We have very little understanding of how the mind works and cannot rule out the possibility that there is a dimension to human existence that we cannot measure with our instruments that are confined to the physical world.

I will agree that many theists take the rational theory of deity which can produce positive effects on their mind and try to apply it to things that do not make sense. On the other hand, this is something humans do all of the time no matter what their beliefs.

In my experience people are as rational as their education allows them to be. A well educated person who is a theist will understand the rational case for theism an will limit the scope of their beliefs to what is rational. Less educated people tend to be more arbitrary and dogmatic in their beliefs but this is true no matter what they believe. I have encountered many completely irrational non-theists in my life.

Incidentally, here is a concrete example of atheists using their non-belief in a deity to justify persecution of others: http://english.people.com.cn/special/fagon...072200A101.html

[Falun Dafa] had been engaged in illegal activities, advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, and jeopardizing social stability.

Beliefs of all sorts - including atheism - can and will be exploited by people with power that want to maintain that power. Altheism only looks better over the course of history because fewer societies choose to adopt it as the guiding principal. On the other hand, the few societies with atheism as the state religion were pretty brutal places. The only societies that don't use religion as a tool of oppression are societies which have no state religion and accept both theist and non-theist viewpoints.

[M.Dancer]

Newton btw, was a fanatical believer in the occult and alchemy.

[Figleaf]

But no theory of a deity I have ever heard is anywhere remotely 'equivalent' to the theory of gravity in terms of predictive precision, testability, or rational provenance.

Very few scientific theories related to biology have the precision and testability of gravity. Most theories related to the effect of various medicines on the body are imprecise because the same medicine won't work in the same way for every person.

That entire comment is totally irrelevant. We are not comparing the relative difficulty of discovering evidence and formulating complete theories between branches of science. We are comparing the methods and outcomes of science with theism.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of evidence. He has evidence that prayer helps. He has no evidence that prayer helps because a deity is doing it.

Newton had no evidence that gravity existed...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You're saying Newton never saw something fall, or roll downhill? And that he never conducted the experiments he recorded about gravity?

River, virtually every response you have given has begun with an totally strange and totally unsupported assertion, but this one has got to take the cake!

... he still explained his theory by proposing that a mystical force between objects existed.

Please provide a citation for where he described the force as 'mystical'.

If you experience positive outcomes as a result of prayer then it is rational to presume that is a result of deity.

You are merely repeating your earlier incorrect assertion, not providing any argument or support for it. Experiencing positive results from praying does not in any way establish that the result is acheived by the action of a deity.

We have very little understanding of how the mind works and cannot rule out the possibility that there is a dimension to human existence that we cannot measure with our instruments that are confined to the physical world.

It's clear that there are numerous phenomena we cannot at this time fully measure or explain. That in no way suggests it is rational to make up imaginary explanations and assert that they are authoritative truth exempt from rational examination.

In my experience people are as rational as their education allows them to be. A well educated person who is a theist will understand the rational case for theism an will limit the scope of their beliefs to what is rational.

That is not my universal or typical experience with educated theists.

[Mad_Michael]

In my experience people are as rational as their education allows them to be. A well educated person who is a theist will understand the rational case for theism an will limit the scope of their beliefs to what is rational.

According to the logical test known as Ockham's Razor, how can you hold that theism (i.e. supernaturalism) is rational?

According to the application of Ockham's Razor, supernaturalism can be logically deduced as being irrational.

[Riverwind]

That entire comment is totally irrelevant. We are not comparing the relative difficulty of discovering evidence and formulating complete theories between branches of science. We are comparing the methods and outcomes of science with theism.

You are the one who claimed that the theory of a deity cannot be compared to the theory of gravity because the theory of gravity is very precise. I am simply pointing out that there are many scientific theories are not that precise or repeatable.

You're saying Newton never saw something fall, or roll downhill? And that he never conducted the experiments he recorded about gravity?

I am simply applying your ridiculous criterion for calling something evidence. Newton's experiments, as best, suggested a magical force but did not prove it existed. According to your own logic Newton must have been completely irrational to suggest that the effects he observed were caused by a uncomprehensible force.

Experiencing positive results from praying does not in any way establish that the result is achieved by the action of a deity.

Observing objects falling does not in any way establish that the result is achieved by the action of a magic force that we call gravity.

It's clear that there are numerous phenomena we cannot at this time fully measure or explain. That in no way suggests it is rational to make up imaginary explanations and assert that they are authoritative truth exempt from rational examination.

You are making an assertion that theist views do not change as knowledge changes. The over whelming majority of theists accept the conclusions developed by scientific enquiry and only apply their beliefs to areas where no such scientific explanation exists.

[Mad_Michael]

You are making an assertion that theist views do not change as knowledge changes. The over whelming majority of theists accept the conclusions developed by scientific enquiry and only apply their beliefs to areas where no such scientific explanation exists.

Like calling gravity "magic" for example...

[Riverwind]

According to the application of Ockham's Razor, supernaturalism can be logically deduced as being irrational.

Only if you presume that the existance of an entity outside of physical perception is a 'complex' explaination when compared to the alternatives. I would argue that the existing theories of the cosmos are incredibly complex and growing more complex over time as scientists try to fix the various inconsistencies in them. If you want to apply Ockham's Razor you should conclude that there is probably a deity of some sort because that is the simplest explaination.

[Riverwind]

You are making an assertion that theist views do not change as knowledge changes. The over whelming majority of theists accept the conclusions developed by scientific enquiry and only apply their beliefs to areas where no such scientific explanation exists.

Like calling gravity "magic" for example...

Gravity is an uncomprehensible phenomena of unknown origin yet you presume it is 'real' because you can observe its effects. It is irrational to claim that gravity must be 'real' because the effects attributed to it can be observed but then reject the idea of a deity even though the effects attributed to it can also be observed.

[Figleaf]

That entire comment is totally irrelevant. We are not comparing the relative difficulty of discovering evidence and formulating complete theories between branches of science. We are comparing the methods and outcomes of science with theism.

You are the one who claimed that the theory of a deity cannot be compared to the theory of gravity because the theory of gravity is very precise. I am simply pointing out that there are many scientific theories are not that precise or repeatable.

1. You are misrepresenting my comment. I gave three elements (predictive precision, testability, or rational provenance) that distinguish a scientific theory such as like gravity from a theistic notion, and none of the three was merely 'precision'. If you won't deal with what I actually say in my arguments, please don't make the pretense that you are replying to me. Reductionist focus on one element, which you also mistate, is not a reasonable argument.

2. "Simply pointing out that there are many scientific theories are not that precise or repeatable ..." does not advance your argument. As I noted and you appear to have failed to grasp, the exercise of comparing scientific results across differently challenging subject matter tell you nothing about the differences between the endeavor of science and the claims of theism.

You're saying Newton never saw something fall, or roll downhill? And that he never conducted the experiments he recorded about gravity?

I am simply applying your ridiculous criterion for calling something evidence.

You said: " Newton had no evidence that gravity existed..." That is an unreserved absolute statement about Newton's evidence, not as you now claim, a relative assessment of MY interpretation of evidence.

Your statement was a total absurdity. Anyone who has seen an object fall to the ground has evidence that gravity exists.

Newton's experiments, as best, suggested a magical force but did not prove it existed.

That is a lie. Newton's experiments suggested nothing "magical" whatsoever. Furthermore, you are seemingly very ignorant of scientific history. Newton was not trying to 'prove gravity existed'. He was attempting to explain why and how things [appear to] fall. No-one at the time doubted that things actually do fall.

Experiencing positive results from praying does not in any way establish that the result is achieved by the action of a deity.

Observing objects falling does not in any way establish that the result is achieved by the action of a magic force that we call gravity.

In and of itself, your statement is correct, just like the one you juxtaposed it to.

Further as regards gravity: (a) no-one is trying to claim gravity is magical, (b ) careful observation of falling objects will allow you to explain how a very commonly observed phenomenon behaves; and © multiple observations of the interactions of various astronomical bodies will allow you to formulate reliable predictive theory about how bodies can be expected to interact, and theories about the causes of that interaction which may be further tested.

You are making an assertion that theist views do not change as knowledge changes.

No, I am not. I will however assert that theist thinking respects no need to change in the face of contradicting knowledge.

[Riverwind]

I gave three elements (predictive precision, testability, or rational provenance) that distinguish a scientific theory such as like gravity from a theistic notion

The theory of a deity that I described has all three of those elements. I will agree that it lacks the 100% repeatability that the theory of gravity has but neither do many theories related to biology. The only reason you reject the deity theory as rational is because you refuse to acknowledge that a deity could exist. I feel such a position is completely irrational.

Your statement was a total absurdity. Anyone who has seen an object fall to the ground has evidence that gravity exists.

Not according your the definition of evidence. If someone who observes the positive effect of prayer on their mental state cannot rationally assume it is the result of a deity then a someone who observes an object falling cannot rationally assume that it is the result of an incomprehensible attraction between matter.

No matter how much you twist you cannot escape the fundamental contradiction in your arguments.

No-one at the time doubted that things actually do fall.

We are not talking about the observations - we are talking about theories regarding the cause that produces the observations. No one doubts that prayer can have a positive effect on the mental state of an individual. The only question is what causes it.

a) no-one is trying to claim gravity is magical

There are some modern theories for the physical mechanisms that produce gravity, however, none of them are accepted as fact. This means gravity is an incomprehensible phenomena that simply exists and we don't know why. Magic is an appropriate word to describe something we do not comprehend.

I will however assert that theist thinking respects no need to change in the face of contradicting knowledge.

Humans resist change - even 'rational' scientists. This artical on peer review illustrates my point.

Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of practitioners as nut cases―until their findings become impossible to deny, which often occurs only after one generation’s professional ring-masters have died off. Science is an odd undertaking: everybody strives to make the next breakthrough, yet when someone does, he is often greeted as if he were carrying the ebola virus.

There is nothing in theist thinking that prevents someone from accepting change as knowledge evolves.