Prayer and power

[RandFan]

I don't know anybody who is always logical and rational. I pride myself on appreciating all of the creatures on earth, though I avoid some. Snakes, spiders, bats, leeches, slugs. None of these things bother me to see or (if safe) touch. But if I see a cockroach and especially if one walks on me, I freak out. Logically, I know cockroaches are not dangerous, nor do they carry disease, but I cannot make logic work when that glistening carapace is near. I'm grossed out just writing about it.

Thank you. I also have some irrational fears. Understanding that they are irrational has helped me with some of them. It is a hallmark of the human mind to be able to think abstractly and to hold irrational thoughts. It is irrational to believe that a human being could ride a beam of light. Yet Einstein famously supposed that he could in a hypothetical and that helped him conceive relativity. The ability can be a good thing.

 

[Bri]

Science cannot make absolute claims. I'm not making an absolute claim. My claim is provisional. I stand by it. Absent proof from you to the contrary and using logic it stands. Now you don't have to believe it. You can believe whatever you like.

Making it an opinion rather than fact. Yet you claimed it to be fact. Then you appeared to become upset when I asked if you meant to say that it was a fact rather than opinion.

No, this is wrong and does NOT represent my view. I only claim that irrational opinions are irrational.

Yet you cannot explain how you distinguish the rationality of one opinion from another, other than it's irrational because it's irrational. I'm sorry, but to claim that a Christian belief in prayer is irrational would require evidence that it is incoherent, which you've not provided.

Please look closely at your statement. You said "reason for believing it". That's the point, there is NO reason to believe it. Absent "reason" it is irrational.

IT'S COUNTER TO THE F'NG LAWS OF PHYSICS!

If I saw a pig fly with my own eyes, I would have reason to believe it, despite its being counter to the laws of physics. I would hesitate to say that someone who has reason to believe something that cannot be proven is irrational simply because it cannot be proven.

I did not use the word "obvious". Please stop that.

Now perhaps you should look up the word "manifest," which is what I was responding to.

You are turning science on its head. I assume provisionally that they have not been proven true. That IS, in part, the scientific method and you ARE ARGUING that since I can't prove that they have never happened that I can't hold such a provisional opinion. That's the same as saying that since I can't prove that there is no Santa Claus I can't provisionaly hold that there is no Santa Claus.

I said absolutely no such thing. Of course you can hold such a provisional opinion, as long as it's opinion and not fact. I simply said that someone can rationally hold the opposing opinion as well.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Making it an opinion rather than fact. Yet you claimed it to be fact. Then you appeared to become upset when I asked if you meant to say that it was a fact rather than opinion.

This is nonsense.

Yet you cannot explain how you distinguish the rationality of one opinion from another, other than it's irrational because it's irrational. I'm sorry, but to claim that a Christian belief in prayer is irrational would require evidence that it is incoherent, which you've not provided.

This does not represent my view. It is irrational for the reasons stated. The belief is not supported by and evidence.

If I saw a pig fly with my own eyes, I would have reason to believe it, despite its being counter to the laws of physics. I would hesitate to say that someone who has reason to believe something that cannot be proven is irrational simply because it cannot be proven.

Sorry Bri, believing in something that is counter to the laws of physics IS irrational by definition. BTW, have you ever seen a pig fly?

Now perhaps you should look up the word "manifest," which is what I was responding to.

I appologize. It does say obvious.

I said absolutely no such thing. Of course you can hold such a provisional opinion, as long as it's opinion and not fact. I simply said that someone can rationally hold the opposing opinion as well.

NO, THEY CAN'T! This is silly and is itself irrational.

 

[I less than three logic]

If I saw a pig fly with my own eyes, I would have reason to believe it, despite its being counter to the laws of physics.

If I saw a pig fly with my own eyes, my first impression would be I have reason to believe I should seek mental health treatment. That is just my opinion though.

 

[Bri]

Consistent with what?

Consistent with itself (i.e. coherent). Consistent with reality, in the sense that it could possibly be true.

The question is, is there "reason" to believe it?

I imagine that those who believe it have reason to believe it.

Here you are doing it again. NOTHING CAN ABSOLUTELY BE PROVEN.

According to Webster, an opinion is a "belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge." By definition, opinions are not positive knowledge. Yet, I wouldn't consider it necessarily irrational to have an opinion regarding prayer (or anything else for that matter) unless the belief is somehow inconsistent. That would be equally true of the belief that prayer has an affect on the world as the belief that prayer has no affect on the world.

-Bri

 

[Genesius]

If I saw a pig fly with my own eyes, my first impression would be I have reason to believe I should seek mental health treatment. That is just my opinion though.

If I saw a pig fly with my own eyes, my first thought would be to look around and try to find whatever launched the pig.

 

[Bri]

If I saw a pig fly with my own eyes, my first impression would be I have reason to believe I should seek mental health treatment. That is just my opinion though.

Certainly possibile, of course. Unless others also witnessed the event. My point being that I cannot rule out the possiblity that someone might have a valid reason for believing that a pig can fly. I also admitted that I'm not sure what such a reason would be.

-Bri

 

[Ossai]

Bri

No. What I am saying is that Christian belief may be wrong, but it is consistent and may in fact be right.

Christian belief is not consistent. How many thousands of examples do you require of various sects arguing over the most trivial of interpretations do you want?

As far as Christian belief being correct, where is the solid unambiguous evidence?

AgingYoung

Your 2nd premise is at times not true yet you want to make a conclusion based on that idea. I'm not willing to accept that reasoning or the conclusions you'd care to draw from it much less persuing other ideas with that sort of reasoning. If it works for you that's fine.

How about addressing the specific examples I gave instead of slaying thy men of straw.

I specified sections, not the entire bible. My second premise stands untouched. I even game examples supporting my statement. You on the other hand, must prove the bible 100% true in order to defeat my second point.

Ossai

 

[RandFan]

Consistent with itself (i.e. coherent). Consistent with reality, in the sense that it could possibly be true.

Anything could possibly be true. Is everything consistent with our observations of the real world?

I imagine that those who believe it have reason to believe it.

Are those reasons consistent with our observations of the real world?

According to Webster, an opinion is a "belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge." By definition, opinions are not positive knowledge. Yet, I wouldn't consider it necessarily irrational to have an opinion regarding prayer (or anything else for that matter) unless the belief is somehow inconsistent. That would be equally true of the belief that prayer has an affect on the world as the belief that prayer has no affect on the world.

su·per·sti·tion
n.

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer, is by definition irrational. Prayer is not logically related to a course of events that would otherwise influence its outcome. QED.

ETA: Only prayer that anticipates a change in a course of events or state is irrational according to this definition.

 

[I less than three logic]

If I saw a pig fly with my own eyes, my first thought would be to look around and try to find whatever launched the pig.

Yeah, but that's not "flying", a launched pig would be more like slowly falling. To qualify as flying to me, it would have to at least be able to change trajectory and climb in altitude after already descending some. Even then it might only qualify as gliding, and I'm pretty sure with a little time, effort, and complete disregard for the pig's safety, I could get a pig to glide.

 

[empeake]

That's precisely what the example (there are quite a few examples) of the discovery of the ruins of Nineveh speaks to.

AgingYoung, you are using the discovery of the ruins of Nineveh (and some other archaeological findings) to support your position that what the Bible says is true. Asides from the numerous examples of contradictions in the Bible that have already been pointed out (flat Earth, Sun revolving around the Earth, discrepancies between parts of the Bible, etc.), let me point out the major flaw in your line of reasoning with a simple example:

1. Read any Harry Potter novel.
2. The novel contains references to the city of London.
3. London exists.
4. As per your argumentation, since London exists, the reference to London is true and, therefore, the rest of the Harry Potter novel is true: There are warlocks and witches among us, and they study at Hogwarts.

You may want to read the thread What do you do when the Bible is proven right on something? to gain more insight of the subject.

 

[RandFan]

OK, if you believe that a miracle only occurs if it is obvious, then the example with the die (and possibly even the soda machine unless someone knew it was empty) isn't a miracle. No less impressive in my book, but perhaps not a miracle by that definition, since it doesn't meet the requirement of being obvious. If that was your point, then I concede.

Bri, again, I appologize. I did not read the entire paragraph. I missed the point you were trying to make.

Again,

Sorry.

 

[AgingYoung]

Empeake,
The premise ...

2. other sections contradict more current knowledge

may sometimes be true yet I've given one example (and there are many) of where it isn't true. To draw conclusions based on an idea that at times isn't true will only give you a viable conclusion accidentally.

AgingYoung, you are using the discovery of the ruins of Nineveh (and some other archaeological findings) to support your position that what the Bible says is true.

This quote of yours isn't true, Empeake. I have yet to argue my position. I'm still considering the reasoning that leads to the conclusion....

the bible, if from one divinely inspired source, is nothing more than a lie.

It is true that I disagree with that conclusion particularly because I disagree with the original reasoning. Now I really suspect that Ossai is a sock puppet and not inclined to do their own thinking so as far as I can tell the matter is settled.

Gene

edit:

 

[I less than three logic]

Now I really suspect that Ossai is a sock puppet and not inclined to do their own thinking so as far as I can tell the matter is settled.

Ossai is who's sock puppet? Do you even know what sock puppet within a forum context refers to?

 

[Bri]

Is everything consistent with our observations of the real world?

Christian belief in prayer is consistent with our observations of the real world given that they don't require any and all prayers to be granted.

Prayer, is by definition irrational. Prayer is not logically related to a course of events that would otherwise influence its outcome. QED.

Note that a particular category of irrational belief is a superstition by your definition. Prayer would not be a superstition unless it fell into this category of irrational belief. To claim that belief in prayer is irrational by assuming it to be a superstition is circular logic. According to Christians, prayer is related to God, which is related to a course of events that result.

-Bri

 

[empeake]

If I saw a pig fly with my own eyes, I would have reason to believe it, despite its being counter to the laws of physics. I would hesitate to say that someone who has reason to believe something that cannot be proven is irrational simply because it cannot be proven.

I've seen a person fly: David Copperfield. It was contrary to the laws of physics. Of the 5000 people in the theater, let us assume 4900 of them thought, "What a wonderful trick! I wonder how he did it." The other 100 believed he did fly. For the audience, there's no way to prove (at that point and time) that he did or did not fly by his own means. Are both positions rational, or is the latter a self-delusion?

 

[Bri]

Bri, again, I appologize. I did not read the entire paragraph. I missed the point you were trying to make.

Again,

Sorry.

RandFan, I accept. Even though some of your replies have been heated, they have always seemed sincere to me.

-Bri

 

[Genesius]

So Gene, are you going to answer Ken's & my questions? When Jesus was talking to his disciples, how do you know when the topic under discussion referred to the disciples only (i.e. prayer always being granted) or to all his followers (i.e. the Great Commission)?

I am, of course, assuming that you believe the Great Commission applies to all his followers, since you have yet to make your belief known. If I am incorrect in that assumption, I humbly beg your forgiveness.

 

[Bri]

I've seen a person fly: David Copperfield. It was contrary to the laws of physics. Of the 5000 people in the theater, let us assume 4900 of them thought, "What a wonderful trick! I wonder how he did it." The other 100 believed he did fly. For the audience, there's no way to prove (at that point and time) that he did or did not fly by his own means. Are both positions rational, or is the latter a self-delusion?

Gullible, perhaps, but not irrational. Seriously, I understand your point, but I still cannot say that under no circumstance would it be rational to hold an opinion that something that seems to violate the laws of physics is possible. It is, after all, possible.

-Bri

 

[Meffy]

I have yet to argue my position.

Then state your claim and argue your position or stop wasting everyone's time.

While you're at it, answer Genesius' and Ken's questions.

Oh, and stop hotlinking images from Wikipedia if you'd be so good. Your "sock puppet" ad hom isn't going to impress anyone, without a graphic or with.