How To Build A Searl Generator

on the Holy Scriptures and the teaching about the alleged religious signs for a different model of thinking

We have seen that those who have faith, or is naive enough or is not interested in the truth. With a fast-paced world, full of pain, evil, mutability, religion offers an attractive place of beauty, peace and eternal life. Everyone likes a place, but unfortunately not just inventing something from scratch to be able to assert the existence and say that there is an entity that is the word of God is not a valid argument, as the word of God was written by men and there is no evidence that God inspired the writing of men. On the contrary, everything suggests that the scriptures are the work of men only. The two key tests are:

1. were written by men and not God;

2. by virtue of the perfection of creation and its timeless essence, God can not be addressed at a particular moment in history to change its course in any way.

Point (1) makes us reflect on the fact that often contradict the claims of Christianity means to prove the obvious. Specifically, you have to show that some texts produced by some men were just written by men, not by a divine entity that contradictory in some way unknown to them has "inspired". So, if the texts were written by A, and we can not verify that A is in no way been influenced by a deity, these texts must have been written by A itself and its own without the intervention of other bodies.

Some may argue that the influence is obvious in the sanctity of the divine messages that contain these records. This is true of some parts of the Bible (such as those concerning universal love), but false for others. If you are not in bad faith can not pretend not to see: in the sacred texts There are undoubtedly some share inciting phallocentrism, others showing a God belligerent, others show that the vengeful, but then identify it with love. Who reads the Bible can not help but feel bewildered about the true essence of God: these attributes, such as the belligerence towards other peoples, are actually divine? And is typical of the divine make contradictory statements?

The cunning stunt of the theologian notes that

c1) the parties objectively best sacred texts can be attributed the influence of the deity, while bad ones are caused by the unfortunate intervention of man, which is inevitably the slave of the values \u200b\u200bof the time in which they live.

likely would be more honest and say that the authors of sacred texts, while being imbued with the values \u200b\u200bof the time in which they lived, they did carry a revolutionary message in that historical moment, as it happens from time to time. But to refute conclusively (c1) be the point (2). Given that "inspire the sacred text" means doing something at a particular moment in history, the argument can be carried out as follows:

a) God is eternal, therefore out of time;

b) God created all things according to his will, as established by the Christian dogmas;

c) the will of God is infallible;

then d) everything is created exactly as God wanted it;

it follows that e) God can not and must not intervene in history, because it is outside of time and because all creation is already at his will, as provided in the instant of creation. It would not make sense to act (the will) in history, which is already coinciding with the divine, in order to change it. So what is written in the Bible is the result solely of the intellect and the pen of some men.

From the above, it is clear that the only useful (if you can call it) of Christianity is to provide an easy consolation for earthly ills. But there is another on purely pragmatic than generally is recognized: that of

(MP) training to the community and enforce a certain ethics.

If a person is of violent nature, a Christian education should soothe her, and if anyone has the urge to steal or kill, the Christian precepts should divert him from his wicked purposes.

E 'obvious to anyone that this is not true. Even St. Thomas in the middle of 1200 wrote that those who contravene the laws should be punished:

" ... there are plenty of rebels and those inclined to vice, that can not be easily moved by words, it was necessary to depict them from evil by force and by fear, to quiet the other ... making life [...]."

In Western history examples that demonstrate the falsity of (MP) are almost endless, but perhaps nothing is as eloquent as what happened between 1300 and 1600, the period of maximum activity of the Holy Inquisition tribunal established by the Church of Rome with the aim of suppressing heresy. After the bulls "Super illius specula" of John XXII and "summis desiderantes affectibus" of Innocent VIII, the Church officially recognizes the existence of witchcraft (the first of them in clerical circles was very skeptical about it) and order as demonic practice, allowing you to use the Inquisition any method to convert the alleged followers of Satan.

before mentioning the methods used in those years to the fight against witchcraft, it is worth quoting a passage from the Malleum Maleficarum, which is a kind of witch-hunting manual, written by Kramer and Sprenger, two Dominican active in Central and inquisitors of 1400. The passage is significant with regard to the Christian concept of the woman at the time:

" ... women are more inclined to believe, and the devil, which seek primarily to corrupt the faith, the more easily able to attack them. Saith the Preacher: who's heart is easy to trust even more light will fall down. [...]

... have the lewd language and can not keep them hidden from other women like the bad things they have learned, and when you do not have enough forces to take revenge, easily try to get revenge with a stench of evil [...]

The woman, bad by nature, falls in early doubts about faith, quickly denied the faith itself, and this is the real basis of evil. Since then, the second faculty of the soul, that is the will, the woman, when taken by hatred of someone who loved the first, burning with anger and impatience, and shake, and boil the sea boils like .. . it all depends on carnal lust, which in women is insatiable, to busy themselves with the demons in order to satisfy their lust. "

not surprising that most of the victims of the Inquisition were women.

was easy to drag someone to court inquisitorial: village often had only a rumor or accusation of one man to justify the torture of an ill-fated.

Torture was no doubt intended to extort a confession of heresy, but frequently, if not in all cases, it served mainly to satisfy the libido sadistic inquisitors' (sadism is a manifestation of deviant sexuality that is pleasure from causing pain and humiliation in another subject). These figures were reached in the years in which they operated, power and tremendous influence, thanks to the terrific fame who had deservedly earned. We know that Don Francisco Tirregon, one of the three inquisitors of Aragon, under the pretext of heresy was to kidnap teenage girls to his men, bent their will by showing the instruments of torture and abuse them. When the French took Aragon and liberated the prisoners of the Inquisition, they were surprised to see, among those, about sixty young and beautiful girls. One of them said that:

• each of the three interrogators had for years a group of kidnapped girls, each locked in a room with no possibility of escape;

• the inquisitor to which they belonged regularly abused each of them, and who became pregnant and give birth without being deprived of the child, who vanished into thin air;

• each year, 6 or 7 girls were replaced by new recruits (do not know if they were killed or removed).

The methods of torture, and the arrangements that were taking an almost scientific precision. In order to continue the torture, he was always careful not to kill the tortured, even lending him aid when he suffered injuries that could be fatal. The methods used were mainly three:

• the shakes: the victim's wrists were tied with a rope passed through a pulley hanging from the ceiling, and ankles with a rope attached to a large weight. By pulling the rope through the pulley, the man was lifted from the ground with all the weight attached to the ankles, the rope was suddenly gone and then taken before the weight touches the ground. The result was that the body was literally stretched due to the combined action of the rope, thereby imparting a force on the wrist opposite to the motion, blocking the free fall, and the weight attached to the ankles, being in free fall, pulled to down. In most cases were found dislocation and loss of consciousness;

• the stand: he was a machine which was used to pull the limbs of a man to dislocate or even tears;

• water torture: it is known in several variants, but the purpose that unites them is to provoke a strong sense of suffocation, with subsequent collapse of the capillaries in the effort to breathe. One of these variants of the heretic was to plug the nose and make him drink water in large quantities.

If these means, though not invented, they were used largely by Christian scholars, it means that Christianity has not softened in any way out the most visceral and violent men that has taken root. A NZI, generalizing it can be said that not only is Christianity not improve man, but where the power meets a perverse will, justify inhumane acts through the conviction of possessing the Truth.

not a bad person does not operate if evil is not a Christian, but Christianity can serve as an alibi, as has already happened. The purpose of the Inquisition was to eradicate heresy, and then demonic evil, and to fight the evil they perpetrated horrors difficult to imagine (in Nazi Germany, evil was embodied by the Jews, and Communist Russia, by landowners and supporters of the capitalist model, in both cases, the killings were necessary as a struggle against evil). The key point of the matter is, however, this: Christianity itself is not a message of violence, but in the mind of a fanatic the execution of an absolute ideal as the Christian can justify the use of any means. E 'the same mechanism by which, for example, an Islamic fundamentalist believes right to kill people belonging to different cultural systems from your . Ultimately, the evils perpetrated in the name of religion can not be attributed to religion, but it provides the motive of action of the fanatic.

L theories and dogmatic, absolute truth would cause unique all-encompassing reality, which do not allow revisions and dissident voices, and the conviction of their truth becomes a license to act in any way the particular (concrete) in the name of the absolute (which may be God or any ideal).

In response to (MP), we can say with certainty that religion not only is of no practical utility, as fails to inhibit, as it proposes to do, not even the most destructive side of man, but is also bad because it is ideological in the sense of vision sole and absolute reality.

A quest to design culturally we must oppose a dictatorship individualistic thought which is capable of continuous movement, or which is able to problematize and transform itself, and at the same time be open to encounter mutual with other models of thought, which is, after all, the right mindset of those who wants to put out to try, with passion and honesty, his truth. Reciprocity and openness to the problematic nature are qualities that are lacking in any religion, which instead arises with a view to otherness hierarchical, closed and dogmatic, and if the only truth can not be discussed and is written in the dogmas, then there is nothing you can do but accept it or fight it in its entirety. Choose to fight it is the first step to confront freely and individually with the big questions that surround the life of each one, choose to fight it means to regain possession of the great themes of the man who for too long been monopolized by the Christian doctors. And d oppose the dogma must be the first step towards the construction of many new ways and meanings.

Broken Capillaries On My Pregnant Belly

the contradictions and contradictory beliefs

It was found that the Christian concept of God is contradictory, as is the idea of \u200b\u200ba miracle. But what are, ultimately, the contradictions? There are different types, which can be traced back to four (the last of which is problematic): syntactic, semantic, logical, metaphysical and psychological and pragmatic.

A contradiction of syntactic type is presented in this form:

1 - & δ ¬ δ

and is at the heart of any atomic, in propositional logic gives rise to the law of contradiction, that together with d other basic laws ( excluded middle, classical double negation, the negation introduction rule, introduction of the conjunction, and so on) is the cornerstone of logical demonstration. For example, here is the simple demonstration of the validity of modus tollens:

p ―> q, ¬q intr. &

2:04

6.

¬ p ____________________intr. ¬ 3-5

In words: the premises are 'not q' and 'p follows from q'; hypothesize p, q from which derived, but among the conditions c 'is not q, then I get the contradiction by introducing the conjunction q and not q. Having obtained a contradiction from the assumption p, I can easily infer the validity of its negation.

From what has been said it can be concluded that a contradiction due to the general syntactic form and we derive the negation of which resulted in or, if there is, the denial of one or more premises considered some (actually not just a simple example to demonstrate this and it would take further explanation, but in this context is not necessary to enter and dwell on the merits in purely technical matters). If by some dogmatic propositions of the Christian religion derive contradictions, then the answer denying the truth of one or more sentences that and have generated. The fundamental problem is that for any theologian, a After the emergence of a body of dogmatic contradictions, there is no particular reason for rejecting a dogma rather than another.

To explain this we must use the definition of truth given by Tarski's schema: T-schema:

Vη η

or "η a proposition is true if and only if η", which is to say that η is real because things are just as η says. If I said "the pen on the table "I would say the real thing without a doubt, because actually the exact moment I utter this statement is that a pen on the table, and everyone, in principle, could verify this.

The reason the theologian of embarrassment in front of a contradiction dogmas

is clear: there is no reason to reject a proposition rather than another simply because that there is no consideration of these propositions in the state of affairs of the factual reality. The truth of a statement (a synonym for 'proposition' in this context) that correspond to any state of things in reality can not be alleged. The theologian, for his absolutist approach, want to keep all the dogmas in the block, on the other hand, the contradictions are obvious, and since there is no way to determine where it is

Error , is forced to attack the flawed logic of judging before God

Tarski's scheme leads directly to the second form of contradiction, semantic, ie based on the concept of truth :

<—―>

2 -

V (

δ) & F (δ)

namely: "a proposition δ is either true or false while "those responsible for the contradiction are the powers of truth and falsehood. Note that while this principle is undeniable: (a) F (a) V (

¬ a)

("a is false if and only if it is not true-a"), you can not say the same about this one:

(b) V (¬ a)

¬ V (a)

("not-a is true if and only if it is non- a true "). <—―> For (a), writing "¬ V (a)" amount to "F (a), ie the falsity of a, m

to some do not recognize this equality, and prefer to keep

expression

untruth,

non- Indeed,

underlining its <—―>

irreducibility to the concept of falsity

. The third type is that metaphysical 3 - ∃ x ∃ P (P (x) & ¬ P (x)) In other words, "the same object is and is not P" or "did not have the property P". This form of contradiction has generated a lot of mistakes in ancient philosophy, with important legacies in the Middle Ages. An example is the philosophy of Parmenides: he thought that, since objects in time acquired property contradictory to each other, then had to be unreal. The fact that John was young and his hair is bald from old shows to Parmenides that the body of John is unreal because contradictory (and has no hair). This error will present itself as such in Plato, who had taken a lot from Parmenides. It 'so important to emphasize that to have a real contradiction that metaphysics must be a certain property owned and does not belong to an object the same time

. This is also true for a semantic contradiction: if I say "are 21.03" Indeed in the instant of utterance, but the false statement would become in just after the 21:03, it is absurd to derive a contradiction, because truth and falsity are in different times and never together.

We come to the last form of contradiction, that psychological and pragmatic, which is more problematic in other

as it

reference sce state of belief individuals. Occurs in two forms:

fourth-

x δ that "the individual accepts δ x and δ refuses.

From (4a) and (4b) we can infer two psychological principles of non-pragmatic contradiction: (nec) ¬

(

x ¬ δ) (NCB) ¬

( at the same time,

or believe one thing and its opposite at the same time

.

For the sake of accuracy I must admit that this is not an absolute principle, as we are taught in psychology, a unique type of logic (or one thing or its opposite) is invalid in a particular environment as

may be that unconscious. However, the principle involved here addresses the individual as it appears in its outward appearance, characterized by its actions _{(pragmatic context)} and its baggage of beliefs _(psychology) , and in such a context, it is categorically impossible for a person simultaneously accepting and rejecting the same thing.

However there may be cases where an individual has contradictory beliefs;

is an eventuality that may arise when he is unaware of the incompatibility of their beliefs.

For example, to stay in theme:

God's omniscience (n) results in its non-omnipotence (

¬ t

) the omnipotence of God (t) results in its non-omniscience ( ¬ n) ; John (g) believes that God is omnipotent; John believes that God is omniscient.
The situation can be formalized:

n _-> ¬ t t

->

¬ n

unknowingly into two psychological contradictions pragmatic he . Fact:

n __________________credenza t belief __________________ n ->

¬ t _____________ ignored t ->

• ¬ n _____________ ignored _________________modus ponens ¬ t 1 and 3

• t & t ¬ _____________ _ intr. & 2 and 5; CONTRADICTION ¬ n ________________ modus ponens from 2:04

• n & n ¬

• _____________intr. & 1 and 7; CONTRADICTION

When John learns of 3 and 4, and if John has the gift of rationality, will notice the contradiction in his beliefs and refuses Otono both.

This explains why the principle of non-contradiction pragmatic psychology is not valid a priori, but only of thumb: the individual must be put in a position to explain the contradiction, otherwise it

remains

1. implicit knowledge of the subject . must then deal with the obstinacy of those who, faced with a contradiction persists in believing. Such a person will try every means to discredit those who commit the unmasking ("caged you have the reality with the logic", "you are a sophist!") Or, on the contrary, detract from, considering not able to refute such a logical approach , convincing, moreover, that there must be an answer, even if you can not see. The Catholic

2. informed of the contradictory aspects of its dogmas, most likely will continue to believe, and is free to do so, the point is that his intellectual honesty does not go beyond that of those who believe that the snow is with white non-white. In the grounds of Christians who persist to "have faith"

3. while being aware of the arguments that demonstrate the inconsistency of their _{dogmatic system} there is nothing rational; they do not seek the truth or are interested in knowing, but
   s
   

ono willing to believe only in what is more convenient and congenial.

Wedding Thank You Genic

alleged miracles

p {margin-bottom: 0.21cm;} What miracles is perhaps the hottest topic among believers in them, acquire the power of empirical evidence of the existence of God, and are regarded with respect by mystic who call themselves agnostics. But what is really a miracle? It really test the existence of a divine being?
vital source on the subject is Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677), who in his masterpiece, the Treaty theological-political, devotes the entire sixth chapter to the demystification of the miracle (remarkable in this respect is also the thought of Pomponazzi , 1462 - 1525, but with some approximation, here we can assimilate at the thought of Spinoza).

Following the Dutch philosopher, the term "miracle" generally refer to a fact, God's work, of unknown cause and which is manifested in the form of something unusual and contrary to the opinion that there is ordinarily the nature. The common opinion is the belief that through the miracle can be proven the existence of God even to the layman (not a mystery that the facts are often seemingly inexplicable reason, conversion). The miracle then becomes the concrete fact, empirical and universally valid (as can be observed by outsiders). All this amounts to saying that, if one takes into account the Spinoza's definition set out above, the existence of God would be proven to be a fact of which we know the source and which would therefore be beyond the laws of nature (or against, or above, if you prefer, the meaning is the same ), and as such, may not have happened for God's direct action demonstration can be reconstructed as:

1. (premise 1) There are facts that go against our expectations and we are unable to understand the natural causes;

2. (premise 2) If we fail to understand the natural causes of an event, then they must be non-natural

3. (Premise 3)

   If a fact has no cause in nature, then God must have them in; ( premise 4) If an event has a non-natural causes, then it is contrary to (or above the ) laws of nature; There are facts that non-natural causes, (by premise 1 and premise 2)

4. some facts against nature (from a and premise 4) The facts are unnatural origin (and therefore desired) by God (from a and premise 3)

5. In conclusion, for the supporters of miracles, there are facts that can not be explained in terms of nature and that are the result of God's time.

6. But this support means to run into at least three serious hindrance.

   first argument against the miracle - It 's common knowledge among the faithful a belief that God created all things, therefore, also the nature with its laws. Following Spinoza, we can also provide a demonstration of this point, assuming that God exists and is immutable and eternal. Natural laws are (writes philosopher) necessary and eternal, and since nothing can ever be necessary and if not by divine decree (under of its attributes), it follows that the natural laws have been established by God himself. In reality, the eternal laws of nature is in doubt, suffice it to say that in the very distant future, changing the configuration of the universe such as next to the big crunch, also will change the laws of physics. Faced with this criticism, it can take two attitudes: to refuse the demonstration (although unnecessary) and process to its conclusion as a religious dogma; groped to defend the proof as responding to the changing laws of nature really depends on the laws of more general nature to which man has not arrived yet (the limit would then be human, not the lex naturalis). Which of the two ways you try, it does not matter in this place, but in any case, the believer who supports the idea of \u200b\u200bthe miracle must come to terms with a God who acts against their will:

7. (premise 5) God created (by an act of will, not for adoption) all things;

   by inference from P1, (q) God has created, and therefore wanted to, natural laws;

8. (premise 6) If natural laws are willed by God, then His will represent; (r) Natural laws represent the will of God (premise for q 6)

(s) made against the [laws of] nature are contrary to the will of God (premise 2, 4 er)

c, s and it follows that r (t) God wants and does not want the same thing.

In summary, God establishes a law of nature that represents its will, but at the same time performs miracles, that breaks the very law he wanted to accomplish his will. To eliminate the contradiction in t, we must believe that or (u) God is mad or (v) a law of nature God has created imperfect and must continually take action to restore their will or (z) God during the creation of Nature may not have provided some facts, and is forced to intervene by performing miracles to restore his will. All three solutions show a God imperfect, changing, in the Chain of time, the majesty of God is shattered. second argument against the miracle - Observing the argument overexposed, immediately jumps to the eye that the second premise (premise 2) If we fail to understand the natural causes of an event, then must be non-natural E 'immediate grasp its falsity, and if something happens that seems impossible, does not mean that it is the impossible happened, but that what seemed impossible in reality it is not. In antiquity, they were divine interventions such as thunder, famine, epidemics. Over time, scientific thinking has demystified them revealing the natural causes, why do not suppose that even today seem miraculous events that actually have their roots in nature, particularly in that part of nature that is still unknown? In addition to continuity with the past, speculate, faced with a seemingly unexplainable event, whether it's still not a scientifically recognized phenomenon also meets the criterion of Occam's razor, the solution of a problem, we must avoid postulating entities redundant and unnecessary to its resolution, since it must be as simple as possible. In the face of an extraordinary event, turn to God to explain it is the most irrational attitude that you might have. An empirical verification of the above accompanied by a few numbers can finally get the truth of this thesis. Take the case of Lourdes as a model. In about 150 years by the appearance of Our Lady, have passed 200 million in Lourdes pilgrims, and were officially recognized 66 miracles. Assuming that everyone wanted to get a miracle, this is indeed the case in the 0.00003% of cases. It can be argued that not all pilgrims wanted to be miraculously healed (many companions may be simple), but you can argue that the 66 recognized miracles, some that occurred in the second half of today would no longer be considered as such thanks to the advancement of medical science. As a percentage is rather poor, and comparable to rates of spontaneous regression of certain diseases (invasive breast cancer regresses spontaneously in 20% of cases, 1 in 5).

The authoritative and competent physiologist Rodolfo Margaria's words put an end to the question: p {margin-bottom: 0.21cm;} " From the cases I see that miracles are attributed only to alterations or diseases in which the diagnosis is often difficult and doubtful, of which little is known about the causal factors, and which also physiological or biochemical mechanisms that lead to healing are not yet known. It happens very frequently, in medical practice, be amazed at such events as opposed to any reasoned and expert estimates. Have been reported cases of spontaneous healing of cancer, and certainly superior in number to those granted at Lourdes. In recent years we have found several chemicals that have proved very useful in controlling the growth of neoplastic tissue, some of these substances are of natural hormones, ie substances that humans can manufacture. Hypothesis is not unreasonable to think that under the action of certain stimuli, are still unknown, a body may react by increasing or decreasing the production of these hormones to an extent that solve or improve a medical condition. The same is done today hormonal treatment of certain cancers that originated mainly in the sexual sphere, such as cancers of the breast or uterus, led to such improvements that would have been considered miraculous even ten or twenty years ago. The incidence of miracle cures is also extremely low: one in a million, to be optimistic. There is a statistic of extraordinary cures taking place in profane places, because it lacks the relevant organization. It is my opinion that their incidence is not less than that of Lourdes. I will have the claims, but I would like the miraculous healings were not confined to a field still obscure disease from a cultural point of view, and which often presents enormous difficulties of professional: diagnosis, relief, and so on. I would like the miracle manifested itself in a very simple, obvious to all, and that gave absolute security: an amputee that comes out of the pool of Lourdes with the return leg, a blind man who takes the view from his glass eye, so to examples. Only then, as a man of science, I could not discuss " third argument against the miracle - It is said that for the faithful, the miracle is God's action in the time it crosses the natural law. So the miracle, an event from unknown causes, is explained by the divine will. But in turn the will of God is absolutely unknown, which are the projects and designs of God we are not allowed to know. It follows that as far as we finite beings, the divine will is a big question mark, a mystery, which should explain the miracles, which are themselves unknown events. Ultimately, explain an extraordinary event with God is to explain the unknown with the unknown. The rebuttal above demolish the miracle at the theoretical level, but because it survives as a superstition in the souls of the populace devoid of theoretical arguments, we must also say something in practice. Some men believe that God (often by the Saints) wanted to fulfill their wish of a prayer ("I've been healed by Padre Pio" or "Mary has cured my son," and so on). This implies that God is always listening to every prayer of every person, which answers them in his will and that its actions depend on the will of man: a kind of servant Galactic, a super genius of the lamp. What can be said about these poor people? I think the appropriate course is this quote from Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed: " every ignorant imagine that existence is a function of their individuality, as if there were nothing more than him."

That is to say: God, if it existed, would certainly not be unhappy and to take care of their demands. His project is unique and includes everything, the individual existence is not important in itself, but only on the basis of the totality of a unit that includes radical.

Moreover, the belief that a certain event has occurred thanks to a prayer falls into the logical fallacy that "does not cause pro causa" reason to believe that b is a fact just because a and b are consequential. As just one example:

Gianni fixed a balloon to try to move it with the mind, and soon after the balloon moves.

Probably few in the world would be willing to believe that the motion of the balloon was impressed by the mind of John rather than fall back on natural causes, like a gust of wind. And the absurdity of the conduct of John, which attempts an impossible thing, is due to the absurdity of those who turn to God, being perfect, immutable, omnipotent, to have a personal return. Obviously I do not speak to those who live terrible and desperate situations, where you can easily lose his mind and even groped on the streets impossible to change your luck. But the action of prayer itself, stripped of its causes which are frivolous or understood, is a completely meaningless gesture.

now propose a thought experiment paradigm that attempts to explain the mechanism of the fallacy "does not cause per Case" and believing in them as if they can noticed. Needed: 20 coins equal with the two different faces with each other (say, an x \u200b\u200band a circle), 20 people devoted to the same God

Each person, separate from the others, is given a coin. Each one should pray to God in common bait oxo circle. According to statistics, we can imagine that 10 people actually come out that they had prayed for (let's call set P), while it did not happen for the other 10 (let's call set N).

Now, a brief digression: please contact the Statistical Office to assume the results of the launch means imply the irrelevance of God (ie God in reality does not listen to the prayers and they can not cause events, which is exactly what we want to prove: begging the question). It should then more properly defined as a paradigmatic situation, a general pattern that is repeated every time you put into practice a practical experiment that inspired it fulfills all the conditions. It is enough to put prayer into practice with the coin toss to realize the veracity of statistics assumed. But since the experiment allows to use empirical facts established, and since the identity of the series of coin toss with a coin toss, preceded by prayers can be found by anyone, we can continue to call it "thought experiment". The mere fact that the two cases present the same results is significant and perhaps decisive for what we want to prove, but you need a process of clarification to make the matter clear and limpid as possible, try below. Returning to the experiment, people will think that the cause of all P's success lies in prayer, making public all the results of 20 subjects each, some are convinced that prayer actually had no role In fact an equal number of dedicated people, having prayed, did not get the miracle. But others think that the God did not want to speak for those who are less worthy.

Now, everyone will be told to renew our prayers for a new launch, which should be much closer in time than the first. There will be, say, 10 people will come to pass his prayer (set M) and 10 no (set O), and the elements of M and O do not coincide with sets of N and P. Therefore, since the time interval between launch and another was too short to make someone fall from grace in the face of God (there is no time material to commit sin), the second launch shows that the supposed miracle is not in fact due to increased devotion (otherwise the elements of M were identical to those of the whole P). But some might still argue that the motives are inscrutable God to intervene.

play meridian is now devoted to 20 coins, you do make a prediction on the outcome of each launch, but without prayer, and to conduct two launches. You'll get that, ideally, we will once again split into four sets of 10 elements, those who have guessed the first pitch and those not, those who guessed the second is not. Since the result of a coin is random, the formation of bodies of those who guessed it and who will not be random. You may also notice a profound analogy with the first two releases (the ones preceded by a prayer), the formation process of the sets are purely coincidental, since the same training sets in the last two launches (probability of the face desired number of items, non-coincidence of elements of the sets of the first with the launch of the second).

1. So if you really want to admit the intervention of God, you have to say that it is the same as, or better, that God is another name for the event.

2. The facts of the experiment are paradigms of other situations more likely. Take for example the case of those devoted to saints because convinced that their prayers have healed themselves or a loved one. In fact, the recovery is due to the type of evil and his advancement to the treatment received, and the body's resistance to fighting, and so on, just like the output of the circle in the x or toss of a coin depends on the force exerted on the coin , the angle, wind, and so on.

In conclusion: do not give facts that are in reality beyond the natural laws, whether or not the subject of prayer, the prayer itself is meaningless action.