The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[Delvo]

Science has the whole world to figure out. Theologians only have one book to explain.

It doesn't make sense to you because you're learning it from atheists. The book is quite clear and even has little commentaries.

Yes, I read several interpretations, it gives a well rounded understanding. You obviously have not.

It is probably the most researched book ever.

If the Bible is "quite clear", why does it need commentaries, theologians to "explain" it, and reading "several interpretations" in order to get "a well rounded understanding", to such a huge extent that it ends up with "the most" of that kind of "research" ever? Why is the correct meaning so hard to find, instead of the first, most basic, most obvious thing a reader would think after their first look at it?

How is a "quite clear" book anything other than one that just says what it's supposed to say, by definition?

It is probably the most researched book ever.

That's exactly its problem. Theological "research" is just people making up stuff about stuff other people made up, and the more of it they do, the more they all contradict each other. And the scientific research on it has repeatedly shown how unrelentingly non-divine it is. The more one knows about it, the harder it is to take seriously.

And yet people have at many points in history killed each other over their disagreements concerning its interpretation, despite most definitely not being atheists and equally definitely not having learned it from atheists. Sorry, but that emperor hasn't got a stitch to wear.

Really? you have to go there... do you want to talk about the killings from Atheists?

The point wasn't (just) about the killing; it was about the differences between different groups' understandings of what the correct and true version of the religion is. Your focus on that other aspect of that post (which I admit shouldn't have been there to give you this opportunity) was a blatant avoidance & diversion to get away from the point that the differences they were killing over were there at all. A competently communicated religious revelation would not have been possible to come up with so many different meanings for.

He clearly took the verse out of context as most Atheists do.

Why would you put something up to prove your point that is so clearly out of context?

This verse is about marriage.

How does that context mean it doesn't say what is says about the righteous interacting with the unrighteous?

 

[Homo sapiens]

The statement that God (if he exists) wishes to remain hidden is reasonable.

What make it reasonable, I'd say neutral at best

Either there is a God or there is not a God. God does not show himself, that we all agree on. But are there clues to his existence? The answer for many with faith is that clues do exist.

There are two types of clues. Material and Personal.

Material:
1 - There was a beginning from "nothing"

This just opens the recursive issue. At the end of that foolishness, one sees that by parsimony it is far more logical to say that the universe was without a beginning (in a conventional sense) then it is to try an account for a series of gods, the final one of whom has no better claim on it origin that the universe does.

2- The Universe is indeed finely tuned

Ah ... Kalam. More utter foolishness. Kalam is complete and utter crap, It has been debunked many,many times. See Don Barker's excellent refutation here: http: (remove blanks here) //infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html

3 - Rather than being "dumb matter" the Universe is predisposed to create Intelligence

True enough, but that goes in the opposite direction that you'd predict. Read: Statistical physics of self-replication by Jeremy L. England (Dept. of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), THE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS 139, 121923 (2013)

4 - Even if one can see the evolutionary line, the "motor" in the flagellum is remarkable, and the odds are against it

Please, not that old chestnut again. See Kenneth R. Miller's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: http: (remove blanks here) //ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts

5 - The "gears" on a particular insects legs are also remarkable

I'd guess you are referring to Burrows and Sutton work on Issus coleoptratus. While this is a new, unique, first of a kind find I don't think it any more remarkable than hundreds of other adaptations.

Personal:
1 - Some people have experiences that science has (very) weak answers for

So we should all go skipping down the primrose path of an argument from ignorance?

2 - Some people (the prophets) have experiences that change history

... or one might say that history happens and the scribes write thier heros into it.

Science used to assume that what people saw, heard and touched was hard reality. Science has shown that matter pops in and out of existence, that spooky at a distance can happen, and that the Matrix mind is a logical possibility.

You do like the logical falacy of and argument from ignorance, that's two so far.

My personal experiences are numerous. I am skeptical, but solidly grounded in many ways. Mine was not a leap of faith but a gradual acceptance that a God (or sorts) is more likely than not.

Personal experince? You could be mad as a hatter. David Berkowitz had personal expereinces with the supernatual, it turned him in the "Son of Sam."

The balance of probabilities are in favor of the existence of an Ultimate Intelligence.

That's a mighty sweeping claim, care to share the supporting data and it's analysis?

The arguments by many on this site answer that the Universe "just is". That sounds like a leap of faith to me.

Oh, "sound to you like ..." Well, that wraps that up. I say, "I don't know - yet!" No argument from ignorance or god of the gaps for me. But for you ... ?

They argue that since they have not had "experiences" that are remarkable (despite some stories that I do not accept as remarkable) others do not have such experiences.

I've had plenty of "remarkable" experience - ever looked a whale right in the eye at close range in the ocean? It's almost mystical, but it is not supernatural. There is no evidence for anything supernatural, and that's what I assume you're talking about.

 

[logger]

If the Bible is "quite clear", why does it need commentaries, theologians to "explain" it, and reading "several interpretations" in order to get "a well rounded understanding", to such a huge extent that it ends up with "the most" of that kind of "research" ever? Why is the correct meaning so hard to find, instead of the first, most basic, most obvious thing a reader would think after their first look at it?

Much of it is quite clear, but it is important to hear what people who study it have to say about it. The parts that were put up and taken out of context is very clear what the meaning is and yet some here took it out of context.
I'm sure you can figure out why?

How is a "quite clear" book anything other than one that just says what it's supposed to say, by definition?

It's the most studied because people are very interested in it.

That's exactly its problem. Theological "research" is just people making up stuff about stuff other people made up, and the more of it they do, the more they all contradict each other. And the scientific research on it has repeatedly shown how unrelentingly non-divine it is. The more one knows about it, the harder it is to take seriously.

Just because people have opinions? It's perfectly fine for people to have opinions, they may even be inspired by God, oh my. Just because translations have different words doesn't mean they don't go in the general direction.

The point wasn't (just) about the killing; it was about the differences between different groups' understandings of what the correct and true version of the religion is. Your focus on that other aspect of that post (which I admit shouldn't have been there to give you this opportunity) was a blatant avoidance & diversion to get away from the point that the differences they were killing over were there at all. A competently communicated religious revelation would not have been possible to come up with so many different meanings for.

I don't think that was his point at all.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove answer focused on a person rather than their arguments

How does that context mean it doesn't say what is says about the righteous interacting with the unrighteous?

Because simple study says the righteous should interact with the unrighteous. How do you think we are supposed to reach them?

You do know what a yoke is don't you?
Can you understand that being yoked to someone is different than interacting with them?

 

[welshdean]

Minor adjustments to interpretation is to be expected. It doesn't confuse me, but it sure as hell confuses you. LOL

Please help me out here Logger. If they are 'minor adjustments', why does a Catholic mass in Rome, look and feel so different from, let's say, the Tabernacle Church of God, in LaFollette, Tennessee.
I'd also be very grateful and be interested to see if you could please list the 'minor adjustments' that have been made between your church and Voodun.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

When people say the universe is finely tuned, I'd like to know what exactly is fined tuned about it?

That we lucked out and our planet is in the habitable zone or that the entirety of the universe is finely tuned for one small speck of dirt?

 

[tsig]

When people say the universe is finely tuned, I'd like to know what exactly is fined tuned about it?

That we lucked out and our planet is in the habitable zone or that the entirety of the universe is finely tuned for one small speck of dirt?

They mean that the Universe is so darned lucky to have humans in it it couldn't happen by chance.

 

[Desert Fox]

When people say the universe is finely tuned, I'd like to know what exactly is fined tuned about it?

That we lucked out and our planet is in the habitable zone or that the entirety of the universe is finely tuned for one small speck of dirt?

People win the lottery and think it is fate that they won or god decided to bless them. The problem of course is that somebody has to win sometimes statistically speaking.

 

[Homo sapiens]

When people say the universe is finely tuned, I'd like to know what exactly is fined tuned about it?

That we lucked out and our planet is in the habitable zone or that the entirety of the universe is finely tuned for one small speck of dirt?

The issue is prospective probability vs. retrospective probability. Think about a roulette wheel, the odds, prior to a spin, gainst hitting a single number are 35 to 1. But, after a spin the odds are either 1:1 or zero. Sitting on a winning ball and being amazed at "beating the odds" is rather strange.

 

[logger]

Please help me out here Logger. If they are 'minor adjustments', why does a Catholic mass in Rome, look and feel so different from, let's say, the Tabernacle Church of God, in LaFollette, Tennessee.
I'd also be very grateful and be interested to see if you could please list the 'minor adjustments' that have been made between your church and Voodun.

You should concentrate on the message they're giving, not on the service they're performing.

Why does every service have to be exactly the same?

 

[Garrette]

You should concentrate on the message they're giving, not on the service they're performing.

Why does every service have to be exactly the same?

This does not address the issue. Which message?

Prosperity Gospel?
Calvinism?
Faith alone?
Works alone?
Faith and works?

 

[Rincewind]

If the Bible is so clear, how come there are hundreds of "isms" - all with their own interpretation?

Now they can't all be right, but they sure can all be wrong...

 

[Desert Fox]

You should concentrate on the message they're giving, not on the service they're performing.

Why does every service have to be exactly the same?

I am curious. . . . .Have you taken a vow of poverty? Jesus sure seems to demand it.

 

[logger]

This does not address the issue. Which message?

Prosperity Gospel?
Calvinism?
Faith alone?
Works alone?
Faith and works?

The good news and saving grace of Jesus Christ.

I'm confident if you read the Bible you could answer all those questions yourself, I have.

 

[logger]

If the Bible is so clear, how come there are hundreds of "isms" - all with their own interpretation?

Now they can't all be right, but they sure can all be wrong...

Not sure, I'm not part of an "ism" The Bible is quite clear to me.

 

[Delvo]

That we lucked out and our planet is in the habitable zone or that the entirety of the universe is finely tuned for one small speck of dirt?

That the universe is finely tuned to generate specks of dirt like ours. The idea is that that wouldn't have happened if certain fundamental physical constants were too high or low; the universe would have collapsed back in a Big Crunch long ago, or it would have hyper-inflated to a Big Rip long ago, or it would be about as expanded as it actually is but atomic nuclei any bigger than H/He/Li would never have fused, or fusion would have been too easy and there'd be no H left, or the supply of elements would be about what it is but forming molecular bonds would be too hard or too easy...

 

[abaddon]

You should concentrate on the message they're giving, not on the service they're performing.

Why does every service have to be exactly the same?

Strawman.

Nobody is demanding that all "services" be the same. Anyone can have as many or as few "services" as they wish.

The question at hand is why the "message" differs between denominations.

Take the various positions on transubstantiation, for example.
Or what heaven is.
Or what hell is.
Or what satan is.
Or...well, you get the picture.

 

[Garrette]

The good news and saving grace of Jesus Christ.

I'm confident if you read the Bible you could answer all those questions yourself, I have.

I have read it, more than once. I've read different versions, and I've read commentaries on it. I've read the comments of theologians, and I've read the comments of non-Christians.

I am not knowledgeable enough to be called an expert, but I am knowledgeable on it, far more than most Christians, at least in my experience.

The point being that you are not quite dodging the direct question I asked, but you are now obliged to answer the next one: Why should we trust your interpretation over the many others by those who are as well read and better than you on the topic?

 

[logger]

That the universe is finely tuned to generate specks of dirt like ours. The idea is that that wouldn't have happened if certain fundamental physical constants were too high or low; the universe would have collapsed back in a Big Crunch long ago, or it would have hyper-inflated to a Big Rip long ago, or it would be about as expanded as it actually is but atomic nuclei any bigger than H/He/Li would never have fused, or fusion would have been too easy and there'd be no H left, or the supply of elements would be about what it is but forming molecular bonds would be too hard or too easy...

Funny how all this just fell together.

 

[logger]

Strawman.

Nobody is demanding that all "services" be the same. Anyone can have as many or as few "services" as they wish.

The question at hand is why the "message" differs between denominations.

Take the various positions on transubstantiation, for example.
Or what heaven is.
Or what hell is.
Or what satan is.
Or...well, you get the picture.

You'll have to be more specific.

The only message that matters is the saving grace through Jesus Christ.

 

[PartSkeptic]

If the Bible is so clear, how come there are hundreds of "isms" - all with their own interpretation?

Now they can't all be right, but they sure can all be wrong...

Or they could all have a little bit of the truth.