The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[blue triangle]

IanS

Well said, as usual. Blue triangle's suggestion that reason should be equivalent with faith is bad enough, but then to say it should be given a slightly lower grade is sad and backward thinking.
I feel so sorry for the hundreds of thousands or more children who are being taught to believe this stuff.

You've both jumped to a conclusion here, then gone off on a rant, especially you, IanS.

I wasn't talking about religious faith in the way that term is usually understood. I was talking about faith in general. Faith that there is a real universe outside my mind. Faith that other people are thinking beings like myself. Faith that the laws of nature apply throughout the universe. Faith that the system of arithmetic I am using is correct, even though certain propositions within it are 'undecidable'. And for theists, faith that there is behind it all a Creator and Sustainer.

 

[IanS]

IanS

Well said, as usual. Blue triangle's suggestion that reason should be equivalent with faith is bad enough, but then to say it should be given a slightly lower grade is sad and backward thinking.
I feel so sorry for the hundreds of thousands or more children who are being taught to believe this stuff.

You've both jumped to a conclusion here, then gone off on a rant, especially you, IanS.

I wasn't talking about religious faith in the way that term is usually understood. I was talking about faith in general. 1. Faith that there is a real universe outside my mind. 2. Faith that other people are thinking beings like myself. 3. Faith that the laws of nature apply throughout the universe. 4. Faith that the system of arithmetic I am using is correct, even though certain propositions within it are 'undecidable'. 5. And for theists, faith that there is behind it all a Creator and Sustainer.

Well the above just again underlines the extreme depths of your religious delusion.

Look at what you've written in the highlight - in the first part of the highlight you mention (1) the real existence of the universe, (2) the existence of other humans (besides yourself), (3) the expectation that the laws of nature apply everywhere, (4) the expectation that arithmetic is correct (i.e. that maths works). And you say you have "faith" in all those 4 expectations. But then you immediately add the part shown in red where you say that (5) you are similarly justified in having faith that a God created the universe and is "behind it all" ! ... well that is not remotely comparable with the first 4 things in which you said you had "faith" is it!

Because the first 4 things are issues on which anyone could show you an absolute mountain of irrefutable physical and undeniable evidence! It's easy to show that (1) there have been trillions of billions of physical observations of "real" objects and real "forces" that make up our universe...so you don't need faith for that! ... you already have overwhelming evidence! And same applies to 2, 3 and 4 ... there is irrefutable evidence that humans exist ... irrefutable evidence that the "laws of nature physics apply everywhere we have ever looked or ever expect to be able look in this universe ... irrefutable evidence that mathematical methods work correctly ...

... but in complete and very stark contrast there is absolutely no evidence to show that a supernatural God created the universe or that he/she/it ever created or did anything at all. There is zero evidence for that. In fact all known evidence of every single thing ever discovered and explained by modern science, is in complete contradiction to even the bare existence of any such creator God. For that you really do need "Faith"!


Or to put all that more simply - you are apparently so deluded in the depths of your religious belief that you think that the faith needed to believe in a magical and physically "impossible" God, is just the same as reasoned belief based on huge mountains of irrefutable evidence for the existence of human beings and the established theories of science & maths (theory of evolution, for example).

 

[Donn]

Exactly, IanS, the same words are employed on both sides of the border in order to muddle sense. If reason can be blurred, a fingertip across pencil-work, then endless conversation can be generated with pained drama at all the misunderstandings from opponents: Of course I meant the opposite when you assumed. Of course I now mean the former when you clarify.

Two-tongued and glib are these crawlers on the political maps of faith.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip>

There is no alternative, other than to live in a self-made shell (or is it 'hell'?), cut off from the flow of life. Life IS dangerous, but to close the door on a meaningful life is to substitute 'dangerous' for 'hopeless'.

One wonders how it is that you dare, that you have the temerity, to say that a life lived in understanding that there is no objective evidence to the 'god' myth is "meaningless".

<snip>

 

[Slowvehicle]

Who said reason should be abandoned? I say it has its place, beside and a little below faith, because even your precious reason rests on that, as does all of science.

By quasi-shakespearean verse you give your pompous drivel a patina of credibility it doesn't take a Godel to demolish. One little breath and the entire shoddy structure keels over, like some ancient, mouldering ruin.
.

One wonders if you realize you are misusing "quasi-".

One also wonders why you invoke Gödel, while at the same time espousing gematira...

 

[John Nowak]

I was agreeing with you, in the main, while failing to point out that belief supports all actions, no matter how vile, equally.

i.e. Belief that causes conversation, and belief that causes terrorism; both sharing belief.

Fair enough. My opinion though, is that it smacks of "You like dogs? So did HITLER."

 

[stanfr]

Fair enough. My opinion though, is that it smacks of "You like dogs? So did HITLER."

well, then maybe you should like cats instead

My point was not to insinuate that belief leads to evil--my focus is on the legitimacy of the belief itself. If one person believes that they will be rewarded in heaven for loving their neighbor while another believes they will be rewarded for killing their neighbor--how can you justify the former belief but deny the latter? On what basis? The underlying personal conviction is the same in both cases.
ETA: IOW, it's not a question of which belief is good and which is bad--it's a question of which is true and which is false.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Blue triangle

I note that you have apparently chosen not to reply to my question about prayer, as you are of course free to do. However, I wonder why this is and hope you will answer.

Perhaps it will help if I repeat the question here: When you pray, either aloud or silently, what do you think happens to those words - I am presuming you expect them to be heard by God who will then decide whether to take action or not; how will you know whether whatever happens next is the result of God's action or would have happened anyway?

 

[PartSkeptic]

There is no unabridged version. There's the original version, and a version to which stuff has been added.

You do know what the verb "to abridge" means?

{Sorry for the lack of replies. Commitment pressures.}

Simple Definition of unabridged:
- not shortened by leaving out some parts : not abridged
- (of a text) not cut or shortened; complete.

The site I looked at said that the copyrighted unabridged version could be purchased, and that what was free was shortened. I asked it anyone had the unabridged version and could give the quote context.

Attributing it to Einstein invests it with a spurious authority.

So you do not think that one of the worlds greatest intellects has anything worthwhile to contribute? That his opinion has the same weight as any internet troll?

It's a trite statement which displays profound ignorance of probability theory.

To some. To others perhaps a gem of truth and insight.

 

[PartSkeptic]

but if you simply accepted it, and borrowed the authority to reinforce your opinion without checking to see if the authority ever actually said it...well. It indicates (best case) a somewhat sloppy line of thought, and makes one wonder how reliable any other evidence you may present could be.

The skeptical part of me checks nearly everything. I have found that repetition on site after site is no measure of authenticity. I have even looked up manuscript writings from an explorer and found what I suspected was more the truth, and contrary to modern accepted politically correct thinking. People re-write history, and the original documents are the best source.

 

[Donn]

The site I looked at said that the copyrighted unabridged version could be purchased, and that what was free was shortened. I asked it anyone had the unabridged version and could give the quote context.

The whole point, of course, was that, whatever bridge you flog, Einstein did not say what you quoted.

To check, I found the full text (I hope it is) on https://archive.org/stream/AlbertEi...rld_as_I_See_it-AlbertEinsteinUpByTj_djvu.txt

There I searched for "anon". No results.

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous," AKA, "Der Zufall ist das Pseudonym, das der liebe Gott wählt, wenn er inkognito bleiben will" really does seem to come from Albert Schweitzer.

There, a correction: use it; don't use it.

So you do not think that one of the worlds greatest intellects has anything worthwhile to contribute? That his opinion has the same weight as any internet troll?

Again, the point was that you sought to burnish a turd with the gloss of sciencishness. How best to do so? Why, reach for the cliché, the One Stein. Prost!

To some. To others perhaps a gem of truth and insight.

As day divides sight, so does belief divide insight.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Prayer filter= you know how to pray effectively?

You missed the point. Many on this site point to the seemingly random responses to prayer. I was giving a semi-scientific methodology (in my opinions) of determining which data (prayer) to include in a better analysis.

"Clearly he would not." Why not? How do you know?

It is logical. Everything we know about the Universe is logical. If God exists then logic would apply.

Satan works hard to cause chaos, and no doubt Satan influences religious leaders and clerics (politicians are ripe targets).} God should know this because Satan (at least the fan-fic christian version) is just another *(his first to some) creation of god. God seems to make many errors.

What if God is not the Ultimate Intelligence, and is another "player" in the illusion we call reality? The Hindu proposition. Then Satan is the opposite. Like matter and anti-matter. And God has the edge, just like matter has the edge over anti-matter. Of course, you know for certain that God/Satan and the Ultimate Intelligence do not exist - do you?

I read the rest as directly contradicting yourself. You know how to pray yet praying doesn't matter as god is already listening. You state no one knows god's plan but you have a leg up because.... you are you. It all looks like lies and self delusion to me.

If God exists, then praying seems to be part of the plan. Those who can figure out if there is some logic behind it, so much the better. Historically, (and even today) many people did/do things despite not knowing why it worked. But it works better when you do.

A lie is a deliberate falsehood. Point out what is false, prove it, and then add your proof that I knew it was false when I wrote it.

Self delusion is a belief in a provable false set of facts. Again, I put you to the proof thereof.

 

[PartSkeptic]

All gods invented by man have been described as having various powers. Most are not considered omni-anything and have limited capacities and/or lifespans. Even the Christian god, despite the omniscient label frequently attached, is shown in the Bible to have major limitations (He can't totally control or eliminate the Devil, can't forgive original sin without a magic sacrifice, etc.).

So even if you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that some god exists, that doesn't automatically cause prayer to become a valid method of communication. For All We Know, this newly defined god communicates by Morse code toe-tapping or tea leaf reading but can't read minds or see through walls. Therefore, it would be an illogical leap of faith to assume that prayer is the default communication method.

Assumption. Invented by man. How do you know God does not exist? (see previous posts above)

Lower forms of life use chemicals, sounds and signals to communicate. Man uses his mind and high level languages. Why would God use some silly limited method of communication.

Already mankind is working on using electrical signals from the brain as a higher form. So using our minds is a logical choice. There are many studies that confirm that some form of physical ritual or routine focuses the mind and assists in achieving the goal (see Neuro Linguistic Programming - forget about quoting fraudsters who like to use this phrase to extract money from the ignorant).

The rituals that are most effective have either evolved, or have been thought through.

 

[PartSkeptic]

This. And not just in the bible. It is common in the apologetics, particularly regarding the problem of evil, to limit God's power. Suffering is necessary for learning or for spiritual growth; there can't be good without evil; people won't truly love without working toward it, etc., etc., etc.

All of which boils down to a tacit admission that God could not create people with perfect love and with perfect understanding, i.e., God is limited.

I agree.

 

[PartSkeptic]

And apparently doing a terrible job of hiding, so badly in fact that Part-Skeptic and many, many Christians have experienced proof that he exists.

This god seem pretty cackhanded if you ask me, seems he can't do anything right!

Where have I claimed that I have proof God exists?

I have experiences that are very difficult to explain. That is not proof. But the standard answers are not good enough for me, although I concede there is a possibility that they are correct.

Most atheists will not concede that there may be an Ultimate Intelligence behind the existence (and design) of the Universe. Many will not concede that no-one knows.

 

[PartSkeptic]

This is why unverifiable "revealed knowledge" is so potentially dangerous. You cannot reason someone out of a position then did not reason themselves into.

Muhammad based his revelations of the Old and the New Testaments, and supplemented them with practical directions. He believed that God spoke through the Old Prophets as well as to him. The Old and the New Testaments, and the Koran have directions that are intended for society to function well. Muhammad believed that the way of peace and mercy is the best way, but there are times that force is justified.

The fact that many clerics misinterpret the messages is what one should focus on.

Muhammad did not write sharia law. Christ did not write Roman law. The Jewish rabbis have been interpreting the Old Testament for their laws to the point one almost can find any interpretation.

And Muhammad succeeded. Islam is one of the most wide-spread religions, and there are ordered peaceful Muslim societies in many parts.

What do non-Muslims in Western militaries believe when they kill civilians using bombs and drones? Are they any better?

Religion is used for good purposes and bad. And maybe Satan whispers in the minds of people no matters what their religious beliefs are.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I don't understand why prayer is necessary.

Surely God is supposed to know everything - so he already knows what you are about to pray for.

That is the Christian view. One I do not hold, as I find it as illogical as you do.

The Christians say they know it all. So do the Muslims, Jews and Hindus. I think they all have a piece of the truth. And many rules and rituals work for some, but can be abused by others.

 

[John Nowak]

well, then maybe you should like cats instead

My point was not to insinuate that belief leads to evil--my focus is on the legitimacy of the belief itself...

ETA: IOW, it's not a question of which belief is good and which is bad--it's a question of which is true and which is false.

That's fair enough.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Much prayer is supplication, asking that the laws of the Universe be altered to benefit the petitioner, admittedly unworthy.

(With a nod to Ambrose Bierce)

You assume the "laws of the Universe" are immutable, and that we are not all an illusion where the laws apply most of the time for consistency.

Unworthy? None of us are perfect. Keep trying in a good way and maybe one will get a helping hand.

 

[ComfySlippers]

...
Why would God use some silly limited method of communication.

...

Did he really just say that?
Wow.