Can you guys explain this? (I swear I’m serious and not trolling)
So I’ll be short because english isn’t my native language and I’m very bad at it
My sister’s cat was sick, he literally couldn’t stand up, he was weak and apparently had his head/brain damaged from hitting it or something, I think he fell from somewhere. Anyway, so my sister prayed for him and “blessed” him and to my surprise, he’s almost healed now.
How did it happen? Can someone give an explanation to this that doesn’t involve the supernatural?
I think God is real, folks. I really think we got it wrong… (That would mean I’m f*cked, since I’ve blasphemed before, so yeah I’m worried, please HELP)
To my knowledge, no doctors of veterinary medicine posts here. I’d suggest you ask one, instead of the folks here without the specific expertise required to answer this with any amount of reliability.
Do you guys thinks it’s just coincidence that he was suddenly healed right after she prayed, specifically “Our Father, who art in heaven”? I know it sounds dumb, but i really can’t think of any other explanation
What amount of time after praying? You mean seconds after saying a prayer? Your original post sounded like there was some amount of time after the prayer was done. Like weeks, or months.
So firstly this is unevidenced anecdotal claim, I can therefore lend it no credence. Though a sick cat getting better is hardly unnatural or unlikely.
You have not offered any factual information that justifies me forming an opinion.
I don’t believe the supernatural is possible, so unless you can demonstrate it is why would it be an option at all? Paradoxically we know for an objective fact that natural explanations are possible.
Also if you are arguing that a supernatural explanation is true, because we lack an alternative explanation then this is fallacious, it is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. It’s very common error in reasoning in religious arguments.
Which deity are you claiming is real, and why?
Who is we, and got what wrong?
I’d relax, as I don’t believe any deity or deities exist.
It’s not just dumb it is fallacious, this one is called a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Living things get injured and sick, and get healed, we need not appeal to mystery here. You have offered no objective evidence at all this was anything but a natural occurrence, assuming it transpired as you describe, and that is pretty vague.
I suppose its more impressive if a ‘healing’ occurred instantly. If it took a few weeks to months, then it just sounds like the natural healing process.
If healing was instant, then one has to ask if there is ever any natural healing that occurs instantly. Cancer has been known to go into Remission naturally, with no prayers being said. But that usually takes places over weeks or months. A small lump under my chin went away by itself for example.
Depends what if anything was wrong with it, all we have is a vague anecdotal claim. Either way all you would have is a mystery you could not explain, I fail to see how this is “impressive”?
If intercessory prayer worked, it could easily be tested, since it is a falsifiable claim. I am only aware of tests that demonstrated it failed to have any discernible effect. Double blind clinical trials were conducted on post heart op patients, to see if prayer could improve recovery times, the results showed it did not.
Why does that sound like a miracle to you? As I said, a sick cat getting better is hardly unnatural or unlikely. What objective evidence can you demonstrate that anything supernatural happened, or that it is even possible? If you can offer none, then why is the bare claim more compelling that it healing naturally? I have broken my clavicle twice, it healed on it’s own, naturally. I had surgery three times in my life, it healed in its own naturally, all you have offered is a vague anecdote about a sick cat getting better, and an unevidenced assumption this must be the result of prayer, and the supernatural.
I must say I am dubious, you also didn’t address my objections to your reasoning?
I don’t know what exactly was wrong with the cat, just that, for a few days, he seemed dizzy and couldn’t stand up, possibly due to having hit his head, but now he seems almost completely healed, supposedly thanks to the prayer?
(I’m trying to explain as better as I can, but my english is limited, sorry)
Then my previous question stands, why would you leap to the assumption that something supernatural occurred? Living things get sick and injured, and they heal naturally, that is an objective fact. I see no objective evidence whatsoever for anything supernatural here.
I’m having a very difficult time taking you seriously because it’s a story involving a cat and you saying that Atheists must have it wrong. It looks & sounds to me that you’re possibly a Christian who came here to troll. You folks monopolize off of fictional fairy tale stories. What else is new? Lol nice try
Well I have yet to hear any answer, as to why @justsomeoneouthere believes this requires a supernatural rather than a natural explanation? Something, anything at all? We know natural explanations are possible after all, since there is overwhelming objective evidence that animals heal naturally. I am not aware of any objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible.
So why @justsomeoneouthere, do you think anything supernatural occurred here? Try and be specific.
Cause it happened right after she prayed? So, to me, it seems there’s definitely a link between she praying for her cat to be healed and him being healed right after this. does it not make sense to you? why? does it seem too hard to believe?
Because you’ve offered no evidence supporting your story. It’s the exact same trope used in Christian stories used to feed Theists more religious nonsense. So no. It makes no sense especially when there are starving children in Africa. It ranks up there with someone who lost their car keys & prayed to Gawd and found them. Your imaginary friend would rather save a cat than save a child dying from Ebola or starvation over seas. Sorry. I’m unconvinced as usual.
Then your reasoning is fallacious, as this is a classic example of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
“The “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, meaning “after this, therefore because of this,” is a logical error that assumes a causal relationship between two events simply because one occurred after the other.”
No, because your reasoning is fallacious, as there is no objective evidence of a causal link. I know of no objective evidence that anything supernatural is even possible, whereas it is an objective fact that animals can and do heal naturally.
Well we have an anecdotal and vague claim, followed by a fallacious assumption, so no, I cannot base belief on poor reasoning and zero evidence.
“Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.” It is a fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been caused by a closely preceding event merely on the grounds of temporal succession. This type of reasoning is fallacious because mere temporal succession does not establish a causal connection.
[…] Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because correlation sometimes appears to suggest causality. The fallacy lies in a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors potentially responsible for the result that might rule out the connection.
A simple example is “The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.”
