CatfishBilly:

This is a variant of God of the gaps argument/Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Because it is unknown therefore it must be prayers.

Oga dont fall my hand here ooo

CatfishBilly vs spacetacular..

You've met your type I'll always call her on you

CatfishBilly:

So you try to discard my claim and want me to accept yours? The sheer hypocrisy, man
That is why I brought in a neutral figure, like every other medical researcher does all over the world. Research articles published in reputable journals. If you don't want to accept it, that's your problem.

If you are so convinced about your experiences, write an article on it and publish let's see if it will survive peer review.

I see, you're a fan of 'majority leads. That's to say the candidate with the majority of the votes is the right one.

The funny thing is the Bible doesn't find all this strange at all.

and nobody asked spacetacular to share her experiences.

hopefulLandlord:


could it be that she woke up during surgery? it happens a lot bro

Hopefullandlord, why you come talk like small pikin for hia nah?
I woke up during surgery too, but i didn't see the procedure from the roof. Since i was lying flat on my back, i saw the faces of the doctors, not what they were doing on my leg.

When it comes to anything God, you all turn kids.

bennyann:


So you where do you stand?

There is both medical and spiritual angle. I think the same thing applies to healing. There is spiritual healing and there is medical healing. It is a prove that man is a spiritual being.

bennyann:


Your post is so bias. Like seriously? All your questions and answers made sense until you got to the last one and do you know why? Because you made it look absolute, like 100%, like generally it can never be while the others you gave them hope....

When you check within you with this way of write up, you yourself will know you were so partial. That alone speaks volumes.

1. Do we yet
2 . is there a 100%
3.... Based on present level
4. Do we have absolute
5. Is... part of

Then when you got to prayers, you generalized it in an absolute way.

Take am easy now... Must you defend to that extent?
Let your heart still be intact ooo

Sister bennyann,

It's been skipping my present attention for a while now, i had been itching to ask the "revelation" behind your moniker.

* are you a follower of Benny Hinn?
* or you're fascinated by Benny's robotic idiosyncrasies?

bennyann:


Your post is so bias.

It appears you folks now subconsciously understand that word "bias", to mean every other thing, except its meaning, when analyzing data.

The knowledge of statistics has no place for sentiment, your research design and methodology must meet the standard, otherwise, the data are useless.

bennyann:

Like seriously? All your questions and answers made sense until you got to the last one and do you know why? Because you made it look absolute, like 100%, like generally it can never be while the others you gave them hope....

*yes 100% sure that prayer CAN'T revitalize dead body.

Because i know what prayer is 100%.

Do you hope that a handsome robot, will ever propose marriage to a born again sister?

bennyann:

Then when you got to prayers, you generalized it in an absolute way.

Prayer don't work, it has never worked. Whatever incidence that chanced on prayer, is a coincidence.

bennyann:

Take am easy now... Must you defend to that extent?
Let your heart still be intact ooo

You can say that, but a victim of religious charade, have me to thank.

akintom:

It appears you folks now subconsciously understand that word "bias", to mean every other thing, except its meaning, when analyzing data.

The knowledge of statistics has no place for sentiment, your research design and methodology must meet the standard, otherwise, the data are useless.



*yes 100% sure that prayer CAN'T revitalize dead body.

Because i know what prayer is 100%.

Do you hope that a handsome robot, will ever propose marriage to a born again sister?


Prayer don't work, it has never worked. Whatever incidence that chanced on prayer, is a coincidence.




You can say that, but a victim of religious charade, have me to thank.

Cant you see everybody is highlighting exactly what I told you about your points yesterday?

When many people keep spotting something foolish about a post, its time to rethink

felixomor:


Cant you see everybody is highlighting exactly what I told you about your points yesterday?

When many people keep spotting something foolish about a post, its time to rethink

I think he has something seriously against spiritualism which is why he is so adamant on an obvious error and hypocritical analysis.

onyenze123:


There is both medical and spiritual angle. I think the same thing applies to healing. There is spiritual healing and there is medical healing. It is a prove that man is a spiritual being.

Thank God we're on the same page.

felixomor:


Cant you see everybody is highlighting exactly what I told you about your points yesterday?

When many people keep spotting something foolish about a post, its time to rethink

Your quackery and difficulties are remarkable.

Because you bunch (Christians) claimed that epilepsy is demonic phenomenon, the first neuroscientist who contended that should have submitted to Christian idiocy, in your distorted thinking.

akintom:


Sister bennyann,

It's been skipping my present attention for a while now, i had been itching to ask the "revelation" behind your moniker.

* are you a follower of Benny Hinn?
* or you're fascinated by Benny's robotic idiosyncrasies?

This my people sef

They're my pet names or short form of my names combined. Benny Hinn wasn't the inspiration at all

Brother Akin

bennyann:


This my people sef

They're my pet names or short form of my names combined. Benny Hinn wasn't the inspiration at all

Brother Akin

Isorite

bennyann:


Thank God we're on the same page.

If I tell you say I love you oh...

spacetacular:



I think he has something seriously against spiritualism which is why he is so adamant on an obvious error and hypocritical analysis.

Of course,
Everyone Knows him here
He claims to be an atheist

akintom:

Your quackery and difficulties are remarkable.

Because you bunch (Christians) claimed that epilepsy is demonic phenomenon, the first neuroscientist who contended that should have submitted to Christian idiocy, in your distorted thinking.

Keep quiet, mental patient
Why are u having flight of ideas?

Nobody is talking epilepsy here nor discussing religion

Your Logic is Stupid! Period!

felixomor:


Keep quiet, mental patient
Why are u having flight of ideas?

Nobody is talking epilepsy here nor discussing religion

Your Logic is Stupid! Period!

Now your sleeping brain is jolted awake.. Kikikikikikiki

Since you and your illusionary "everybody" are horrible combination of cowards, Hypocrites and internal Dunning Kruger subjects, a precursor of your predicament was needed.

My conclusion is simple.

Prayer CAN'T revitalize a clinically certified dead body.

If any of your "everybody" can disprove this, shove them forward!

akintom:


Now your sleeping brain is jolted awake.. Kikikikikikiki

Since you and your illusionary "everybody" are horrible combination of cowards, Hypocrites and internal Dunning Kruger subjects, a precursor of your predicament was needed.

My conclusion is simple.

Prayer CAN'T revitalize a clinically certified dead body.

If any of your "everybody" can disprove this, shove them forward!

Your vituperations just keep worsening
Which experiment did you use for your conclusion?

You still cant see the point. Moomoo

felixomor:

You want me to explain what "statistically insignificant" means?
And u say u r conversant with statistics?

So, where is your statistical analysis to back up your claim? What was the sample size? What was the assumed P value at onset? What was the final P value after your analysis?
Or did any of the articles up there quote a study, a sample size and a P value?
If you don't have answers to these questions, then don't ever mention anything concerning statistical significance abi you think say them dey siddon for corner quote am?

bennyann:


Oga dont fall my hand here ooo

CatfishBilly vs spacetacular..

You've met your type I'll always call her on you

I'm actually enjoying in. Best debate I ever had on Nairaland, sadly she's no longer quoting me.
Call her anytime you like, I'm always open to debates.

CatfishBilly:

So, where is your statistical analysis to back up your claim? What was the sample size? What was the assumed P value at onset? What was the final P value after your analysis?

LMAO
What is all these?
Guy, if u dont know statistics
There is no need to throw around red herrings to make u look like you know it.
You can do that for lay men

CatfishBilly:

Or did any of the articles up there quote a study, a sample size and a P value?

You are funny
No the articles didnt
I just told u that your article is insufficient to arrive at any conclusion, because its number of times of reportage is microscopic and statistically insignificant as far the physiology of dead people is concerned.
The article falls into the category of "observation"
Period.

CatfishBilly:

If you don't have answers to these questions, then don't ever mention anything concerning statistical significance abi you think say them dey siddon for corner quote am?

You just suceeded in demonstrating you know nothing about statistics.
By asking what "statistically insignificant" means when u are trying to draw conclusions with a mere observation article.

akintom:

It appears you folks now subconsciously understand that word "bias", to mean every other thing, except its meaning, when analyzing data.

The knowledge of statistics has no place for sentiment, your research design and methodology must meet the standard, otherwise, the data are useless.

This is not about sentiment bro. What's unknown and especially what you don't believe in shouldn't be talked about with so much authority. Is it reasonable in science to say what's 'unknown' has no probability of occurence in the happenings of events?

You didn't even go by the rules of science when concluding, all because it is an issue you want to go all out against.

I would say it's still a scientific theory and you have no right whatsoever to conclude what you know not about. It's better, logical and more scientific when you still leave it in the archives of the unknown till you find the answers to all the unknowns or better still give some credit to it like you did with the rest.

*yes 100% sure that prayer CAN'T revitalize dead body.

Because i know what prayer is 100%.

That's what I was referring to. You see yourself? Anyway I wasn't expecting otherwise since you have no God.

I should then say here, that it's the religious that are actually open-minded. They give a bit of acknowledgment to other issues but here, you're so close minded to anything relating to God, so you're not in the best position to conclude. As a matter of fact that's your opinion. When it comes to issues like this those who are very sentimental about their belief system are not allowed to carry out results and you know why.

Do you hope that a handsome robot, will ever propose marriage to a born again sister?

yeye, is this all you could come up with? How you take enter here now?

Prayer don't work, it has never worked. Whatever incidence that chanced on prayer, is a coincidence.

When science or medical bodies give up on a patient having a particular issue but the patient eventually turned up healthy and sound without medical explanations. Well, that's also a coincidence right?

But it would no longer be a coincidence when they start experimenting on the healed patient to find out how and why she survived even after she has told them it was God. That's when they will remember there's a scientific explanation to why the patient survived. To you, that's when you say it's not a coincidence right? Who are we deceiving?

You couldn't work on someone and you gave up. the person survived which shocked you and told you it was God. Then you who gave up on her because you know her case was a lost cause will now start giving her scientific reasons why she MIGHT have survived. The one who went through all the sufferings and pains, is so foolish and so in the mood of a joke to tell you it was God right?

Whatever you say for this can be smacked down by the other and this is where we have to think, Like use our heads..

Just as you've seen two medical persons here in the monikers, spacetacular and CatfishBilly but both of them are on the different sides of the divide. That should tell us something..

Anyway,

Just as there are rules, procedures and strategies to be followed during surgeries, same is applied to prayers.

So in reply to the robot statement, do you expect to make babies when you've not known your wife? (aside going for artificial insemination and the likes) These are two living things ooo.

Grow up by being fair, then you will stop using handsome robots to support unanswered prayers. That trend is still so partial.

You can say that, but a victim of religious charade, have me to thank.

Don't thank yourself yet. It isn't over until it's over.

felixomor:

LMAO
What is all these?
Guy, if u dont know statistics
There is no need to throw around red herrings to make u look like you know it.
You can do that for lay men




You are funny
No the articles didnt
I just told u that your article is insufficient to arrive at any conclusion, because its number of times of reportage is microscopic and statistically insignificant as far the physiology of dead people is concerned.
The article falls into the category of "observation"
Period.



You just suceeded in demonstrating you know nothing about statistics.
By asking what "statistically insignificant" means when u are trying to draw conclusions with a mere observation article.

You know it was a simple observation/case report article and not a say cohort study with a sample size and you still brought in statistical significance.
For you to confidently say it is statistically insignificant, the p value should be equal to or less than 5%. You have not shown any statistical analysis that got a p value of less than 5%.
Don't bring up p value or statistical significance again. It doesn't work in these types of articles.
Better still, I can recommend some good biostatistics textbooks for you

CatfishBilly:

You know it was a simple observation/case report study and not a say cohort study with a sample size and you still brought in statistical significance.
For you to confidently say it is statistically insignificant, the p value should be equal to or less than 5%. You have not shown any statistical analysis that got a p value of less than 5%.

My brother, this thing is done and dusted.
There are some things u dont need to calculate
Just try to estimate the number of dead people in hospitals since 1982
And compare it to "40"
Bro, no need to even do the chi square, it is statistically insignificant.
If u want to go ahead do!
Its just like u saying 5 nigerians out of 180 million is a statistically significant number. Sorry it isnt

CatfishBilly:

Don't bring up p value again. It doesn't work in these types of articles.

This is always how u show yourself to be funny
Nobody brought up "P value", you did
Just because u wanted to use red herring to hide ignorance.
You are the one who was trying to use an observational article to win arguments, thats why I showed u that it was an unwise thing to do.

CatfishBilly:

Better still, I can recommend some good biostatistics textbooks for you

Hian.
So far, you are the one who needs them more, I think

felixomor:

My brother, this thing is done and dusted.
There are some things u dont need to calculate
Just try to estimate the number of dead people in hospitals since 1982
And compare it to "40"
Bro, no need to even do the chi square, it is statistically insignificant.
If u want to go ahead do!
Its just like u saying 5 nigerians out of 180 million is a statistically significant number. Sorry it isnt




This is always how u show yourself to be funny
Nobody brought up "P value", you did
Just because u wanted to use red herring to hide ignorance.
You are the one who was trying to use an observational article to win arguments, thats why I showed u that it was an unwise thing to do.



Hian.
So far, you are the one who needs them more, I think

P value is what is used to determine statistical significance. These billions of people and the 40 since 1982 isn't how it is done in statistics. A sample size is chosen and what ever analysis is done.
Statistically insignificant is a p value of less than or equal to 5%. I can't teach you about ICD10 and then teach you about biostatistics between yesterday and today. Mba nu, not happening.

CatfishBilly:

I'm actually enjoying in. Best debate I ever had on Nairaland, sadly she's no longer quoting me.
Call her anytime you like, I'm always open to debates.

A debate? Sorry sir I thought it was a simple discussion. You got a whole lot wrong medically on the issue of autoresuscitation because as far as medical science is concerned it's a huge mystery still. It's called autoresuscitation from the medical angle because they had no hand in it so cannot take credit for it.

Personally I have seen at least 4 of such cases on the field and 2 stayed dead for over 30 mins while we worked on their bodies trying and looking for any signs of life. I wasn't much of a prayer person at that time but my fellow paramedic was and I remember him praying all through the ride to the hospital for one of them and we dropped off the body at the emergency hospital at Lewisham. The doctors hooked him up right before us and he had already flatlined. We walked out of the room with Mattie (my fellow paramedic). Time of death was called and we were about leaving the hospital when a nurse ran out and called everyone back in that the dead man just opened his eyes. This was someone with Hematoma. With 2 long metal spikes driven into the side and back of his skull from the impact of the accident, collapsed lungs and dead for 15mins or so before we got there. The drive to the hospital took 5mins. He woke up breathing!

The other which was over 30mins was a code blue. I have seen a lot of gory stuff sir so I am not in here for a debate. Medical science is doing their bit but it does not end there. Trust me because I know.

bennyann:


This is not about sentiment bro. What's unknown and especially what you don't believe in shouldn't be talked about with so much authority. Is it reasonable in science to say what's 'unknown' has no probability of occurence in the happenings of events?

You didn't even go by the rules of science when concluding, all because it is an issue you want to go all out against.

I would say it's still a scientific theory and you have no right whatsoever to conclude what you know not about. It's better, logical and more scientific when you still leave it in the archives of the unknown till you find the answers to all the unknowns or better still give some credit to it like you did with the rest.

That's what I was referring to. You see yourself? Anyway I wasn't expecting otherwise since you have no God.

I should then say here, that it's the religious that are actually open-minded. They give a bit of acknowledgment to other issues but here, you're so close minded to anything relating to God, so you're not in the best position to conclude. As a matter of fact that's your opinion. When it comes to issues like this those who are very sentimental about their belief system are not allowed to carry out results and you know why.


yeye, is this all you could come up with? How you take enter here now?


When science or medical bodies give up on a patient having a particular issue but the patient eventually turned up healthy and sound without medical explanations. Well, that's also a coincidence right?

But it would no longer be a coincidence when they start experimenting on the healed patient to find out how and why she survived even after she has told them it was God. That's when they will remember there's a scientific explanation to why the patient survived. To you, that's when you say it's not a coincidence right? Who are we deceiving?

You couldn't work on someone and you gave up. the person survived which shocked you and told you it was God. Then you who gave up on her because you know her case was a lost cause will now start giving her scientific reasons why she MIGHT have survived. The one who went through all the sufferings and pains, is so foolish and so in the mood of a joke to tell you it was God right?

Whatever you say for this can be smacked down by the other and this is where we have to think, Like use our heads..

Just as you've seen two medical persons here in the monikers, spacetacular and CatfishBilly but both of them are on the different sides of the divide. That should tell us something..

Anyway,

Just as there are rules, procedures and strategies to be followed during surgeries, same is applied to prayers.

So in reply to the robot statement, do you expect to make babies when you've not known your wife? (aside going for artificial insemination and the likes) These are two living things ooo.

Grow up by being fair, then you will stop using handsome robots to support unanswered prayers. That trend is still so partial.



Don't thank yourself yet. It isn't over until it's over.

Hmmmm..... Sister benny Hinn.. Oh sorry bennyann,

Never knew you have capacity for lengthy rebuttal. Kikikikikikiki... Never say never for me there.

In all, your prayers CAN'T revitalize a clinically certified dead body.

That's the conclusion of the whole matter.

Any objection from you?

CatfishBilly:

P value is what is used to determine statistical significance.

WRONG!
P value is not what is used, What is used are tests OF SIGNIFICANCE
I told u
You don't know this thing, Stop deceiving yourself
P VALUE is what you compare the results of the particular test with to rule if its significant or not.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

CatfishBilly:

These billions of people and the 40 since 1982 isn't how it is done in statistics.

Please how is it done?
Dont embarras yourself

CatfishBilly:

A sample size is chosen and what ever analysis is done.

This is when you want to carry out a study
Stop bringing this into this discussion

CatfishBilly:

Statistically insignificant is a p value of less than or equal to 5%.

Thats after you have done a test of significance.
You don't know this thing

CatfishBilly:

I can't teach you about ICD10 and then teach you about biostatistics between yesterday and today. Mba nu, not happening.

Please have some shame in your life for once
Thank God 2 other people spotted your LIES on ICD-10
If u were not a doctor, I would have disgraced you more.
Now look at you again Messing up, using "P value" as red herring argument

Just because u have been exposed trying to use a mere observation to force your way on so called "Lazarus Syndrome"
Mscheww

felixomor:

Your vituperations just keep worsening
Which experiment did you use for your conclusion?

You still cant see the point. Moomoo

There's no other way to describe a charlatan, who claimed to be a medic, yet subscribing to prayer, as an explanation for revitalization of a clinically certified dead body (albeit in the face it, been a ruled out causative).

What experiments established prayer as a causative?

akintom:

There's no other way to describe a charlatan, who claimed to be a medic, yet subscribing to prayer, as an explanation for revitalization of a clinically certified dead body (albeit in the face it, been a ruled out causative).

What experiments established prayer as a causative?

YOU WERE THE ONE WHO JUST POSTED YOUR "CONCLUSIONS"
You are the same person asking me questions....

Cant u see your foolishness?

spacetacular:


A debate? Sorry sir I thought it was a simple discussion. You got a whole lot wrong medically on the issue of autoresuscitation because as far as medical science is concerned it's a huge mystery still. It's called autoresuscitation from the medical angle because they had no hand in it so cannot take credit for it.

Personally I have seen at least 4 of such cases on the field and 2 stayed dead for over 30 mins while we worked on their bodies trying and looking for any signs of life. I wasn't much of a prayer person at that time but my fellow paramedic was and I remember him praying all through the ride to the hospital for one of them and we dropped off the body at the emergency hospital at Lewisham. The doctors hooked him up right before us and he had already flatlined. We walked out of the room with Mattie (my fellow paramedic). Time of death was called and we were about leaving the hospital when a nurse ran out and called everyone back in that the dead man just opened his eyes. This was someone with Hematoma. With 2 long metal spikes driven into the side and back of his skull from the impact of the accident, collapsed lungs and dead for 15mins or so before we got there. The drive to the hospital took 5mins. He woke up breathing!

The other which was over 30mins was a code blue. I have seen a lot of gory stuff sir so I am not in here for a debate. Medical science is doing their bit but it does not end there. Trust me because I know.

I thought a back and forth is called a debate. I'm sorry then.
I'm sure in all these cases that you've seen, resuscitation attempts we're made. The Crux of the matter is that in all these cases resuscitation was attempted before autoresuscitation occurred. I'm not talking about cases where there was no resuscitation attempt.
In the cases reported in medical journals, prayers weren't even reported as a possible contributory factor.
Phineas Gage in 1848 had a metal rod impaled into his skull damaging his frontal lobe but still walked to the cart that took him to the hospital.
All I am saying is Autoresuscitation has been established in medicine, it is not a myth, it is not someone's imagination,it has nothing to do with spirituality, it has been steadily reported, in fact, some authors argue that it is under reported.

felixomor:

WRONG!
P value is not what is used, What is used are tests OF SIGNIFICANCE
I told u
You don't know this thing, Stop deceiving yourself
P VALUE is what you compare the results of the particular test with to rule if its significant or not.

Stop embarrassing yourself.


Please how is it done?
Dont embarras yourself


This is when you want to carry out a study
Stop bringing this into this discussion



Thats after you have done a test of significance.
You don't know this thing



Please have some shame in your life for once
Thank God 2 other people spotted your LIES on ICD-10
If u were not a doctor, I would have disgraced you more.
Now look at you again Messing up, using "P value" as red herring argument

Just because u have been exposed trying to use a mere observation to force your way on so called "Lazarus Syndrome"
Mscheww

Just continue with your ignorance, you hear. It's obvious that you're not open to learning.
Let's just leave it.