No such thing as a hierarchical causal series in the real world

  • Thread starter Thread starter lelinator
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When the claimed evidence is examined, then if it’s revealed to be “mere fantasizing”, then it’s discarded.
Hold on! How do you examine the claims about the non-physical? You assert that the non-physical is not available for examination. So, how do you know if it was “fantasizing”?
Different question.
Not at all. I am talking about ANY claim about the alleged non-physical realm. I already presented a list of the alleged non-physical entities. Preferably I would like to see individual arguments for each of them, but that might pose too large a task. So pick any of them, and present real, non-fantasy based evidence.
In the same way that you assess whether any witness recalls the events correctly – corroboration, etc, etc.
Not interested in specifics, are we? Corroboration by physical evidence? Or another alleged witness? Because that is the point. Up until the point when physical evidence is presented, it is all “words” by someone. Suppose Joe claims that he observed some UFO-s. And when you ask for evidence, he summons Jane. Jane admits that she was not there, but Joe told her about the event. Can you do anything better?
Not sure I understand what you’re trying to ask. The trivial answer, to what seems a trivial question, is: “the eyewitness himself.”
No, that is NOT what I asked. Where did that original story-teller (eye-witness?) get his information? How did he observe the alleged non-physical? Because without it, all we have is unsubstantiated “fantasy”.
Again: just as you would do with any eyewitness testimony. Of course, when dealing with events in antiquity, it is silly to suggest that we have iPhone video or living eyewitnesses to events in 1st century A.D. Palestine…
So, in other words, you have nothing.
Nah… sometimes there really are straw men and red herrings, and it’s necessary to point out to the ignoramus exactly what he’s trying to get away with…
Do you have an example? And on what grounds do you declare something to be “red herring”? These insinuations are worthless unless they are accompanied by actual arguments: “what is wrong? why is it wrong? how to make it correct”? Exactly what was MISSING from your insinuation - and everyone’s who asserts “red herring” or “straw man”. A cheap shot from an empty gun.
 
Let’s see your methodology, then.
Record the hoped-for outcomes. Record the acts, which are supposed to produce the hoped-for outcomes. Record the actual outcomes. Then perform the statistical analysis to decide if there is a strong correlation between them. Yes, correlation does not lead to causation, but the stronger the correlation is, the better the chances that there is some causative agent involved.

This methodology is general. It is not restricted to the alleged supernatural causative agents. It is perfectly usable to examine the claims of some paranormal causation. (Or the efficacy of a new drug.) Anywhere, where it is assumed to have an unobserved causative agent around. And before you get some righteous indignation, there is no difference between them. Both are alleged non-physical causative agents. There is one thing in common, however. The experiments will show: “no correlation, no causation!”

You see, you painted yourself into a corner. You say that the non-physical can interact with the physical (which presents the interface question), but when you are asked about evidence, all you can offer some unsubstantiated testimonials. That is all.

There was this question from you in a previous post:
Even more important: how would you propose to distinguish between ‘physical evidence from physical causes’ and ‘physical evidence from spiritual causes’?
Why on Earth should I propose a method do decide something that I do not accept? I gladly admit that I have absolutely no idea how to decide that question. Because it is not my assertion, it is yours that there is some “spiritual cause”. This was the strangest ever demand I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few.
 
I believe that my mother once worked in a cigar factory in Lexington, Kentucky. The only evidence I have is that she told me so. No documents, photos, souvenir cigars. But I’m sure it’s true.
 
I believe that my mother once worked in a cigar factory in Lexington, Kentucky. The only evidence I have is that she told me so. No documents, photos, souvenir cigars. But I’m sure it’s true.
So what? Mundane claims do not require elaborate evidence. 🙂
 
Well, my story is pretty mundane, and I have no evidence, but everyone in the family believes it. But then my mother also has a pretty good record of oral history. My brother can recite those stories verbatim.
 
Well, my story is pretty mundane, and I have no evidence, but everyone in the family believes it. But then my mother also has a pretty good record of oral history. My brother can recite those stories verbatim.
Guess what? I believe it, too! I have never met your mother, and know nothing about her, but I see no reason to doubt her word. On the other hand if MY deceased mother would have asserted that she was kidnapped by space aliens, I would NOT have believed her. Fortunately she did not. 😉
 
In mathematics there is the Bayes-theorem, when one can assign probability values to possible causes.
But does Bayes’ theorem work in the real world? What is Bayes’ theorem? It says:

P(A|B) = P(B|A)P(A)/P(B).

Suppose now that

A is being dead

B is having a heart attack.

Then of course, P(A)>0 and P(B)>0.

Now obviously, P(B|A) = 0 because if you are dead, then you cannot have a heart attack.

So P(B|A)P(A)/P(B) = 0, regardless of what P(A) is or P(B) is.

But many people will survive a heart attack. Not all heart attacks are fatal. So, P(A|B) > 0. IOW, P(A|B) does not equal zero.

So it appears that Bayes theorem does not work in this case.
I expect that a person with an IQ of 170 would be able to solve this dilemma easily.
 
Last edited:
So it appears that Bayes theorem does not work in this case.
The theorem is fine, but in real life cases it is hard to assign the probabilities. The probabilities of ‘A’ and ‘B’ are not known, so they need to be approximated. To do that we need to perform many experiments (thereby “dirtying” our hands in the “sordid” empiricism. 😉 )

And, of course ‘A’ and ‘B’ need to be independent from each other. (Almost forgot.)
 
Last edited:
The probabilities of ‘A’ and ‘B’ are not known
That is irrelevant to the question. It does not matter what the probability of A or B is as long as they are not zero. You get the same result of zero on the rhs and non-zero on the lhs regardless.
And, of course ‘A’ and ‘B’ need to be independent from each other. (Almost forgot.)
Mr. IQ of 170, this is not true. This is such a big error, I suspect that your IQ is much lower than the advertised 170.
 
of course ‘A’ and ‘B’ need to be independent from each other.
Mr. IQ of 170
Do you think that there is no difference between the following two conditions?
1.P(A) and P(B) are the probabilities of observing A and B independently of one another.
2. A and B are independent from each other.
Hint: 2 means for example that P(A|B) = P(A).
Further, i don’t see where the wikipedia article answers the objections to Bayes theorem in a case such as I have mentioned? Do you?
 
Last edited:
Record the hoped-for outcomes. Record the acts, which are supposed to produce the hoped-for outcomes. Record the actual outcomes. Then perform the statistical analysis to decide if there is a strong correlation between them. Yes, correlation does not lead to causation, but the stronger the correlation is, the better the chances that there is some causative agent involved.

This methodology is general.
Yes, it is. And, in the domain of evaluating medical therapies, it can be pretty effective (especially if it’s double-blind, and utilizes both medicines and placebos). However, I would assert that it’s not effective for the purpose that you intend here…
It is not restricted to the alleged supernatural causative agents. It is perfectly usable to examine the claims of some paranormal causation. (Or the efficacy of a new drug.)
Actually, “supernatural causation” (not ‘paranormal’, thank you very much!) is a different ballgame. In fact, if you’re conflating ‘paranormal’ with ‘supernatural’, you’re already missing the point somewhat, I’m afraid. ‘Paranormal’ describes those instances of actual physical energies producing physical effects (watch any of those happy, happy ghost shows on TV – they’re measuring the ‘ghosts’ and not just their effects; find the ghost, I suppose, and you validate the effect). ‘Supernatural’, however, is different – we’re not positing physical entities, but rather, spiritual ones. (Therefore, our attempts at ‘detection’ are necessarily different in nature: we’re attempting to detect only the physical effects, not their supernatural causes.)

This, then, is why we can’t design this experiment as if it’s the trial of a new drug. Prayer isn’t merely a binary event (“I got what I wanted” / “God didn’t hear me”). If it were, you might be able to make the case you’re attempting. Rather, we would say that prayer has three outcomes from God – “yes”, “no”, and “I have something better in mind for you.” We would assert that God always answers prayer – but in one of these three ways. Now, the problem is twofold: first, how do you distinguish between the first and the latter two outcomes? Second, how can you ensure that your population isn’t skewed? (After all, if you have a new birth control pill and give it to men or those outside of the age range for pregnancy, you’re going to draw exactly the wrong conclusions from your data!) Same thing here: if you don’t know what God’s will is, then how can you know which of the three outcomes you’ve received? And, how can you distinguish between a healing that’s due to prayer from one that isn’t?

It’s a good attempt, IQ… but it’s naive, in that it attempts to characterize prayer and its effects invalidly. 🤷‍♂️
Why on Earth should I propose a method do decide something that I do not accept?
If you refuse to consider the possibility, why are you requesting or designing or conducting experiments? That’s the very definition of a lack of scientific objectivity!
 
Prayer isn’t merely a binary event (“I got what I wanted” / “God didn’t hear me”). If it were , you might be able to make the case you’re attempting. Rather, we would say that prayer has three outcomes from God – “yes”, “no”, and “I have something better in mind for you.”
Actually it doesn’t matter that God’s answer to prayer isn’t always yes. So long as God’s answer to prayer is occasionally yes, then such a study is feasible. In fact, such studies have already been done, and prayer has been found to be ineffective.

So if God does indeed answer prayers then it would seem that He’s cunning enough to make His handiwork undetectable from mere chance.
 
However, I would assert that it’s not effective for the purpose that you intend here…
Asserted without evidence, rejected without evidence. It is perfectly applicable, but the result is always negative.
Actually, “supernatural causation” (not ‘paranormal’, thank you very much!) is a different ballgame. In fact, if you’re conflating ‘paranormal’ with ‘supernatural’, you’re already missing the point somewhat, I’m afraid.
We were talking about non-physical causation, and that involves both. I would be happy to see some substantiation for either one of them.
Prayer isn’t merely a binary event (“I got what I wanted” / “God didn’t hear me”). If it were , you might be able to make the case you’re attempting. Rather, we would say that prayer has three outcomes from God – “yes”, “no”, and “I have something better in mind for you.”
You can say whatever you want. What is the difference between options “2” and “3”? Apart from the fact that none of the “answers” are linguistic. You try to come to a conclusion based upon the outcome,
but that is useless. How do you know that the positive outcome was the result of God’s action? Also there are some apologists who say that option 3 is: “Not now” - which is fundamentally different from “I have something better for you”. Also @lelinator gave a perfect reply about the prayer. No need to repeat it.
If you refuse to consider the possibility, why are you requesting or designing or conducting experiments? That’s the very definition of a lack of scientific objectivity!
If you have a hypothesis, you need to set up the experiment to substantiate it. I am simply observing the result. I did not say that I reject the possibility out of hand, I merely say that it is your responsibility to substantiate it. And let the chips fall where they may!

Of course you shy away from the important question. How did the “first” apologist (whom you call the eye-witness) obtain the information about the unobservable non-physical reality? What kind of corroboration can you offer when the alleged secondary “witness” is as blind as the primary “eye-witness”? You only offered one alternative for the physical evidence, namely the testimonial evidence. And you keep on avoiding the basic problem: “where did the information presented by the witness come from?
 
Actually it doesn’t matter that God’s answer to prayer isn’t always yes. So long as God’s answer to prayer is occasionally yes, then such a study is feasible.
Oh, the study can be done, but valid results cannot be drawn!
In fact, such studies have already been done, and prayer has been found to be ineffective.
Only because the theory behind the studies was invalid. If you’re going to go at it from the perspective of “healing = God’s yes” and “no healing = lack of response from God”, then you’ll reach bad conclusions (just as if you conducted a study of birth control pills on the elderly (“hey, look! it’s 100% effective!!!” :roll_eyes:)…!

If you misunderstand the domain, you’ll mischaracterize the range.
So if God does indeed answer prayers then it would seem that He’s cunning enough to make His handiwork undetectable from mere chance.
No… that’s not it: rather, it’s that “scientists” who attempt to measure the effect of prayer are mischaracterizing what prayer is (innocently, not deliberately, one hopes).
Asserted without evidence, rejected without evidence.
You’re really good at parroting tag-lines, aren’t you? Bravo! (Unfortunately, you’re not as successful at using them appropriately…)

You see… you’re ignoring the fact that I had explained why it’s not effective. I mean… nice try, but sadly, no dice.
It is perfectly applicable, but the result is always negative.
No… rather, the conclusion is: “garbage in, garbage out.” Bad hypotheses lead to bad conclusions.
We were talking about non-physical causation , and that involves both.
No, it doesn’t. Let me try again, since you seemed to not read what I’d asserted: if the ghosthunters are measuring for ghosts themselves, then they’re measuring for physical causation in addition to physical effects. That’s a whole different dynamic than asking about God.
You can say whatever you want.
Sure. And, as a Catholic who understands what the Church teaches, I will. 😉
 
Last edited:
What is the difference between options “2” and “3”?
A couple of things:
  • In your construct for the experiment, both of these conflate into a single response – both of which are classified as “God didn’t hear your prayer.” In a Christian context, both of these are answers to prayer, even if you didn’t “get” what you “want.”
  • Option 3 requires faith in God to trust that He has something better in mind than what I’m asking for.
  • If the goal is to determine whether God hears prayer, then this means that the experiment must fail – all three options are responses.
  • On the other hand, if the goal is to determine whether we force God’s hand and make Him do things He wasn’t going to do… well, that grieviously misunderstands and mischaracterizes God and His Providence. Such an attempt, by its very definition, must fail.
So, in other words: an experiment set up in this way will always fail to produce valid results. (Unless you’re an unbeliever, in which it will always succeed in producing the results you want! Of course, that puts you in the same category as the ‘scientists’ who performed bell jar experiments and ‘proved’ spontaneous generation! 🤣)
If you have a hypothesis
I do; but it’s not empirically verifiable. Sorry. 🤷‍♂️
 
Oh, the study can be done, but valid results cannot be drawn!
And how can you substantiate THAT conclusion?
No… that’s not it: rather, it’s that “scientists” who attempt to measure the effect of prayer are mischaracterizing what prayer is (innocently, not deliberately, one hopes).
Along with the millions of supplicants, I presume. Unfortunately it is you, who confuses supplicative and meditative prayers. A supplicative prayer ASKS for something specific, the meditative only seeks to get closer to God.

The funny stuff is, when there seems to be a positive result, the supplicants (and all the other believers) are satisfied that God “answered” their prayers in a positive fashion. How do they know that it was not just a very rare, but lucky coincidence? Moreover, some supplications will always come back with the negative response. And some other supplications will always come back with a positive result. (You have to know how to choose your “fights” 🙂 )
No, it doesn’t. Let me try again, since you seemed to not read what I’d asserted: if the ghosthunters are measuring for ghosts themselves , then they’re measuring for physical causation in addition to physical effects . That’s a whole different dynamic than asking about God.
Incorrect. The ghosts are not physical beings (just like the angels, demons and the rest) so they cannot exert a physical force, only some magical one. Your hypothesis was that a non-physical being can influence the physical reality. Ghosts, angels, demons, gods all belong to this category. But if it makes you feel better, just explain the demons, after all they are all over the place doing their destructive work.

How do the demons exert physical influence on the physical realm, when they are non-physical entities (just like the ghosts)? How do the exorcists “detect” the non-physical demons? What physical actions do the exorcists take, which will expel those demons? How do they detect that the demons departed? All sorts of physical acts, which have some effect on the non-physical realm. Wonderful questions, all await your detailed response.
Option 3 requires faith in God to trust that He has something better in mind than what I’m asking for.
So your evidence must include “faith”… and you peddle it as evidence? Every skeptic understands that the “third option” is just a cop-out to explain away the lack of positive result.
 
On the other hand, if the goal is to determine whether we force God’s hand and make Him do things He wasn’t going to do… well, that grieviously misunderstands and mischaracterizes God and His Providence. Such an attempt, by its very definition, must fail.
You mean that God purposefully skews the results. Not a very honest or honorable way to treat others. It happened before that I made some unfortunate (but honest and correct) remarks, and they were taken to be blasphemous, even when that was the least of my intent. I think that your remark is the true blasphemy - accusing God to be petty manipulator, who cheats left and right to hide his existence.
I do; but it’s not empirically verifiable. Sorry.
What other “verification” can you offer? What did you say? “Bad hypotheses lead to bad conclusions.” Now that is definitely correct. But then the question is: “How do you separate the bad hypotheses from the good ones?” If they cannot be verified???

Moreover you avoid the real questions, like the devil avoids the holy water. Your “hypothesis” was that there is an alternative epistemological method besides the physical, empirical verification. And you declared that it is the “testimonial” of SOME alleged witnesses; some of whom you declared to be “eye-witnesses”. The questions you keep on avoiding:
  1. How did that witness obtain the information he presents?
  2. Did he use some physical, empirical method?
  3. Or did he just repeat someone else’s testimony?
  4. Or did he receive a “personal” revelation? (This would bring up some MORE tough questions.)
  5. Or… he just fantasized about something and tries to peddle it as real information?
Also, how do we verify that the testimony is correct? You said: “the usual way… find corroborating evidence.” What is a corroborating evidence? Is it empirical? You forgot that the expression EYE-witness means that the witness employed his physical faculties (eyes) to obtain empirical evidence about the phenomenon. So you refuted your own hypothesis, namely that empirical verification is not necessary.
 
And how can you substantiate THAT conclusion?
I’ve already done it. I’ll leave the exercise of constructing the matrix of possibilities and results as an exercise for the reader. 😉

The idea is this: if you misconstrue the purpose of prayer as a simple “God answers or God ignores” event, and if you do not account for the possibility of a skewed population in the trials, then you necessarily are never able to prove that you’ve reached a valid conclusion. Rather, you simply are forced to shrug and conclude “it doesn’t work.”
Unfortunately it is you, who confuses supplicative and meditative prayers. A supplicative prayer ASKS for something specific, the meditative only seeks to get closer to God.
Sadly, you’re mistaken. All prayer is an attempt “to get closer to God.” Once you’re wearing a pope’s mitre and crosier, though, I’ll accept your notion of what prayer is… 🤣 😉
The funny stuff is, when there seems to be a positive result, the supplicants (and all the other believers) are satisfied that God “answered” their prayers in a positive fashion.
I know. That’s a mistaken conclusion, as well. Popular, but mistaken. In actuality, what we’d say is that it was God’s will all along that you’d come to the point where you’d ask for what He wills and He’d do what He wills. In other words, prayer is efficacious – not in terms of bald ‘result’, but in terms of ‘relationship with God and His will.’
The ghosts are not physical beings (just like the angels, demons and the rest) so they cannot exert a physical force, only some magical one.
Tell that to the paranormal community. They’re the ones attempting to measure the “physical presence” of the ghost.
How do the exorcists “detect” the non-physical demons? What physical actions do the exorcists take, which will expel those demons? How do they detect that the demons departed? All sorts of physical acts, which have some effect on the non-physical realm. Wonderful questions, all await your detailed response.
Ask the ghost hunters. I’m sure they’d love to talk about their “techniques”. I’m not an apologist for their project.
So your evidence must include “faith”… and you peddle it as evidence ?
No. The physical result is the physical result – and if all you’re doing is measuring “physical results”, then this is one. From a theological standpoint, however, I’m explaining what that result means. So, I’m not calling faith “evidence”, as you claim. But hey… nice try in mischaracterizing my response. It almost worked! 🤣
IQ70:
Every skeptic understands that the “third option” is just a cop-out to explain away the lack of positive result.
No… every skeptic believes this to be the case. Now you’re having difficulty distinguishing between “belief” and “fact.” Are you sure you’re well-prepared for this discussion? 😉
 
I’ve already done it.
No, you have not. You only said that “the study can be done, but valid results cannot be drawn”. No argument, just another unsupported declaration. Of course I can create the matrix, and apply the analysis. The result will be the same: “No correlation, much less causation.”
Sadly, you’re mistaken.
No, I am not. The subset of prayers, which specifically ASK for something, can be evaluated, and the result is negative.
I know. That’s a mistaken conclusion, as well.
So your opinion “trumps” the opinion of all those millions of believers. Poor believers. Know-it-all-Gorgias explains that you are all delusional.
So, I’m not calling faith “evidence”, as you claim.
You said: “Option 3 requires faith in God to trust that He has something better in mind than what I’m asking for.” And that is not evidence for the veracity of option 3.
No… every skeptic believes this to be the case.
Based upon the available evidence. And the evidence is very strong.
Ask the ghost hunters. I’m sure they’d love to talk about their “techniques”. I’m not an apologist for their project.
Why should I? I ask YOU, the apologist for the demons, and I also asked for detailed response. Of course I did not expect anything… because I am very good at predicting YOUR answers… even though I would love to be mistaken.

So, let’s try again:
  1. How do the exorcists “detect” the non-physical demons?
  2. What physical actions do the exorcists take, which will expel those demons?
  3. How do they detect that the demons departed?
  4. All sorts of physical acts, which have some effect on the non-physical realm.
You don’t get it. The whole point of this one sided “conversation” (I ask something and you deflect) revolves around the epistemology of physical reality and non-physical entities, who can have a two-way interaction with the physical realm. And, of course, how can we get information about this alleged non-physical realm?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top