Prayer and power

[Beth]

No, clearly not. I have been very careful to be very precise. Though I have stated my opinion that prayer is irrational I have focused on the miracle aspect of prayer.

I'm sorry, but I've read through the entire thread and that isn't how I interpret your posts. However, it is an interesting conundrum that in many cases, the more precise you make something, the more convoluted and easily misunderstood you are.

I think that it is irrational. If I believe that putting mayonnaise on my elbow is the reason I feel good, it might work (coincidentally) but it is not rational. But I'm perfectly happy to let those who believe that putting mayonnaise on their elbow will make them feel better, believe that it is rational. It's not but that is not the subject of this discussion.

Just because someone is mistaken about why or how something occurs, it doesn't make it irrational to believe that that something will occur. For example, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's the anger of the Gods or teutonic forces, believing that a volcano is immenient in certain situations is quite rational.

I don't quite follow your logic. In any event, believing that an act (prayer) can influence unrelated events is by definition irrational. There really is no getting around that fact.

So it's irrational to believe in chaos theory? That a butterfly in Singapore can influence weather in Brazil? According to chaos theory seemingly unrelated events can indeed have an influence. So I don't find your supposition that such a belief is irrational valid.

Sorry, but I have to go now and can't respond to the rest of your post.

Beth

 

[Tricky]

Oh, but he does!

Hey, wait a minute -- you mean that guy with the glowering eye and white beard and million-dollar challenge ISN'T GOD?!?!

*9_9* Ooooops...

God should be able to prevent himself from going bald.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

So it's irrational to believe in chaos theory? That a butterfly in Singapore can influence weather in Brazil? According to chaos theory seemingly unrelated events can indeed have an influence.

Total non sequitur because this is a straw man of chaos theory. The butterfly-prompting-a-tornado metaphor isn't meant to suggest that a butterfly can cause inclement weather halfway across the globe; it is meant to suggest that such wing-calisthenics of Lepidopterae can make the difference between bad weather and somewhat worse (or better) weather. The central idea is that in certain systems a minuscule difference in initial conditions can, in the longer run, manifest decidedly differently.

'Luthon64

 

[Tricky]

For example, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's the anger of the Gods or teutonic forces, believing that a volcano is immenient in certain situations is quite rational.

Damn Germans! They're causing all these volcanos!

 

[Meffy]

Q: What do you call a German god who burrows into the depths to cause volcanoes?

A: A rootin' Teuton.

P.S.: My impression is that the traditional God could go bald -- by pulling his hair out by the double handful while lamenting "Why me? Gevalt, such a pain my kids give me!"

 

[RandFan]

I'm sorry, but I've read through the entire thread and that isn't how I interpret your posts.

I have no control over how you interpret something. I can only make arguments. If there is a error in one of my arguments please demonstrate that flaw and we will deal with that. Otherwise, thanks for your opinion.

Just because someone is mistaken about why or how something occurs, it doesn't make it irrational to believe that that something will occur. For example, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's the anger of the Gods or teutonic forces, believing that a volcano is immenient in certain situations is quite rational.

Sorry, you are demonstrably wrong and your argument is spurious.

So it's irrational to believe in chaos theory? That a butterfly in Singapore can influence weather in Brazil? According to chaos theory seemingly unrelated events can indeed have an influence. So I don't find your supposition that such a belief is irrational valid.

(emphasis mine) Your argument is spurious. Please note the word "seemingly". It is theoretically understood how a small variable could effect a complicated system. There is logic and reason behind Chaos theory. There is no theoretical logic and reason behind the notion that prayer can effect an unrelated event. There are only supernatural explanations.

 

[elliotfc]

Then prayer has no actual function. If it is all just a "personal" feeling and has no objective definition of how it works, then it can't be said to work at all, since no one can agree what that means.

Sure you can say that it works. What's stopping anyone from saying that? Not you (duh), but also not your argument. You're just saying something that others disagree with.

As for objective definitions, before there were objective definitions things worked, so I don't think that the presence of an objective definition is needed for anything other than, I guess, a coping mechanism. Why else would you *need* it? Would things *not* work if we couldn't objectively define them?

LOL. Yeah, but it is tough to build a relationship with someone with whom you have no communication. Communication is the foundation of a relationship. So if you can't demonstrate the existence of the foundation, it's pretty hard to demonstrate the existence of the relationship.

And again, I don't feel any need to do such a thing. If there's an *actual* communication/relationship going down, this is an irrelevant point to the people *involved* in the relationship, in two ways. First, in the way that people pray anyhow and will continue to do so, and second, in the actuality itself independent of skepticism.

Yes, and I can list the rational reasons for believing in Santa Claus too.
1) You see him in stores
2) They have songs about him.
3) (and most importantly) He brings you gifts

etc. etc.

Exactly, which is why I don't consider people who believe in Santa Claus to be irrational.

Here's the thing. Once you know a belief is irrational, can you still rationally believe in it?

I'm not sure. I'll say maybe for now.

I submit that you cannot. The only excuse for believing something irrational is ignorance.

No, there can be other excuses...unless, you mean the only good excuse. Is that what you mean? Sorry, you're welcome to say that you mean exactly what you say...

Also, it may be ignorant to say that something is irrational when it isn't irrational...not something I want to push but I'm just throwing it out there.

That is why most people will not agree that their beliefs are irrational, but will try instead to contend that they are rational.

Sure.

So really, we come back to the definition of what is meant by "rational". On this, I suspect we will not soon agree.

Right. I tend to think that just about everybody is rational. The irrational ones get weeded out pretty quick. I know it makes people feel *really good about themselves* to dub others as irrational, and that's all I think that is. Ubermenschianism. Let's debate topics and not call people names.

Talking to imaginary friends is irrational.

Make you a deal. If God is imaginary, oh well! Deal?

Since I don't think God is imaginary, and since just about everybody who prays also doesn't think that God is imaginary, a religious believer can be in absolute agreement with your above statement.

If you agree with this, then the only way you can make your communication with God rational is to believe that He is not imaginary.

I disagree. There may be a hell of a good reason for a person to talk to an imaginary friend, and if there is, I'm not going to call that person a name. If it gets the job done for them, that's great. I don't need to impose a label on others who have different needs than I do. Except the Ubermenschian thing, but that's in response to others who call other people names and it's done for rhetorical reasons.

If it is not important to you that your communication with God is no different from the communication with an imaginary friend, then there is no need to determine if this communication is actually occurring.

I agree. What's this need thing all about?

And I disagree because your need has nothing to do with rationality. If it is so important to you that you have an imaginary friend that you will brook no inquiries, by yourself or others, about how you know this friend, then you can continue to maintain that this belief in the imaginary friend is rational. I could not do this.

I agree that you may have limitations that I and other religious believers do not have.

Since I don't think God is imaganary your point kind of goes right over me head.

As for inquiries, the sort of inquiries I would engage with on this matter are not scientific inquiries. They're on a different level, and you can label those as you'd like as well.

I think it's clear that I am comfortable in my belief in God. I'll take full responsibility for that. If I'm wrong, oh well.

Not just for skeptics. For yourself. Maybe you don't need to know if it is rational.

I think it is rational. Maybe you can say that I need to think that it is rational. If it's irrational, oh well.

Maybe you don't care.

I sort of care. There are things I certainly care about a heck of a lot more.

And that is one of the biggest difference between skeptics and believers. Skeptics care if their own beliefs are irrational. At least, this one does.

Again you're trying to force me into a dichotomy. Either I care to the extent that you care, or I don't care at all. I think relatively speaking you can take my, I think, evident nonchalance as me not caring. But really, if I didn't care I don't think I'd be engaged in this whole rational/irrational thing. I do care in my own way. I don't care in the way that you care.

I'm more interested in whether or not my beliefs are objectively wrong, or objectively right. That means oodles more to me than this rational/irrational biz.

Then it seems you are saying that "results" have no connection to prayers.

Not in the way we would have it, no. Not in the way I *introduced* this thread, if you care to check the original post.

Zero zip zilch. they are *two* different things. Nothing you say to or hear from God has any effect on results.

Not in the way we have it, no. God will not be forced to accede to our will in the way we would have him accede to our will.

But if that is not your argument and you still maintain that there is a connection, however tenuous, between prayer and results, then without evidence, that belief is irrational. By definition.

No dictionary defintion I checked (five in the past few minutes) attaches lack of evidence to irrationality. And I have no desire to go any further into this particular point. I see you want to be dogmatic about how to define rational and irrational, and I'm not interested in such dogma, other than to say what I just said...and I'll say it again. Five dictionary definitions or irrational. Not one which mentions the words evidence.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

God should be able to prevent himself from going bald.

He'd definitely be able to pony up more than a million!

 

[RandFan]

If you really got into a verse, the context of the verse, and the totality of prayer in the gospels, instead of selecting a phrase culled from a verse, I think you'd see this from my point of view.

1.) The Bible is not a coherent whole. It is very contradictory and there is no consensus as to the meaning of verses.
2.) I have supplied several complete verses.
3.) I did not take those scriptures out of context.

But I won't ever be able to get you to do that, I don't think.

My argument is consistent and does not simply rely on a single verse taken out of context. The meaning of that verse is quite explicit. You may reject the verse but you have not given any reason to reject it. I think this little exercises is a great example of the problem of scripture. You are here telling me that what seems clear is in fact not clear and I must read the entire Bible and take everything into context before I can find the meaning of a single verse. That is very problematic. That is why there are so many different denominations. I'm curious, is it even possible to explain what exactly an individual scripture mean?

John 14:13-14

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Clearly Christ had a purpose for saying these words, what was that purpose? Are you honestly saying that we can't know what Christ meant unless we read the entire Bible? Most of the Bible?

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
--Luke 11:10 - 12

And what does this mean?

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Again, what is the message here? What is being conveyed?

Let's agree that,

1.) There is a god.
2.) God doesn't answer every prayer.
3.) God answers some prayers.

What do the above scriptures mean?

Well *should* is a whole different banana. I don't believe in telling God what he should do.

The argument has nothing whatsoever to do with telling god what he should do. That is a really tired straw man. The argument is that it is demonstrable that there are prayers God never answers. That there is zero evidence that god answers prayers. That there is no logical connection between prayer and the events prayer for.

You've said this many times and I'm not willing to accept this dogmatic statement on faith alone.

Hey, I'm not asking for faith. On the contrary, it IS a falsifiable claim. I'm waiting for you to falsify it.

I agree that some people can be misled by all of this.

No kidding.

 

[RandFan]

You mean mechanism as in...prayer being necessarily attached to a particular result, right?

You say that a prayer (the act) is not related to the result (the event), and I say that might be the case sometimes, most of the time, rarely, I dunno. It's not something I'm going to be dogmatic about. I'm not going to say that it's always related to the event or never related to the event. I just don't.

Can you demonstrate any relation beyond a supposed one?

Also, just because we can't explain a mechanism does not mean it doesn't exist, think about life before neo-Darwinian evolution if you dare.

Just because I can't explain a mechanism for flying reigndeer doesn't mean that such a mechanism doesn't exist.

There is anecdotal evidence which may be rejected and/or explained away.

Anecdotal evidence speaks for itself. There is anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Elves, Leprechauns, etc.[/quote]

 

[RandFan]

Just anecdotes.

Which is to say zero.

I think point 4 is a coping mechanism on your part (just my opinion). It would wreck your world view if there was a relation, so there can't be, and those who say there is must be irrational.

Elliot, on many occasions on this forum I have conceded when I was wrong. Some of those times were rather difficult I'll confess but I can assure you that I was quite capable of coping. I would be happy to discover that prayer were an effective means of healing. You need but provide the evidence. Lacking that I might as well put mayonnaise on my elbow.

Both work, and BTW, I have anecdotal evidence that mayonnaise on the elbow works to cure colds, flus and and other ailments.

I see that this means a lot to you, so I'll stop repeating what I keep saying, because in turn you just repeat what you keep saying.

Leaving my church and letting go of my beliefs was a difficult thing for me to do. If the statement were not correct I would not repeat it. I only ask for evidence or logic to demonstrate that it is wrong. It's your choice whether to respond or not.

 

[elliotfc]

1.) The Bible is not a coherent whole. It is very contradictory and there is no consensus as to the meaning of verses.

So why are you trying to make a point out single verses then? Why not just say the Bible is incoherent?

-----
Much of this post I completely disagree with, but I've already stated that I'll no longer repeat myself, so I'll respond to only a few of your points for that reason.
-----

I'm curious, is it even possible to explain what exactly an individual scripture mean?

*You've attempting to do just that*. You've taken verses and told me exactly what they mean, and now you're wondering whether or not such a thing is possible. Flabbergasting.

Clearly Christ had a purpose for saying these words, what was that purpose?

To tell us that we should pray.

Are you honestly saying that we can't know what Christ meant unless we read the entire Bible? Most of the Bible?

No. I've already given the parts that should be read to understand Christian prayer. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read. Most of the time would be spent in finding the verses actually, as opposed to reading them.

Let's agree that,

1.) There is a god.
2.) God doesn't answer every prayer.

But I won't agree with #2. Sometimes the answer could be *wait*. Is that not an answer?

3.) God answers some prayers.

He answers all prayers in his own way, and sometimes the answer can be *no*. Like if I prayed that I be Jesus on Mondays and Wednesdays and Jesus be Jesus only on Saturdays but that I also be Jesus on Saturdays too and if the phone rings then my dog Hu-Chu is Jesus but not if the phone rings only twice in which case the phone is Jesus.

What do the above scriptures mean?

I've already answered this. Darn it.

WHY DID YOU NOT INCLUDE VERSE 13 in your Luke passage? Verse 13 indicates EXACTLY WHAT GOD WILL PROVIDE WHEN WE PRAY. And why did you leave out his version of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of Luke 11?

With Matthew 18:19...WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT VERSE 20 which completes the thought?

With Matthew 20:22, the verse directly preceding it says "have faith and do not waver". And does he say he say *WHEN* we will receive what we ask for? NO!

The argument has nothing whatsoever to do with telling god what he should do. That is a really tired straw man.

No. You're a tired straw man. Enough.

-Elliot

 

[Beth]

I have no control over how you interpret something. I can only make arguments. If there is a error in one of my arguments please demonstrate that flaw and we will deal with that. Otherwise, thanks for your opinion.

You're Welcome!

Sorry, you are demonstrably wrong and your argument is spurious.

(emphasis mine) Your argument is spurious. Please note the word "seemingly". It is theoretically understood how a small variable could effect a complicated system. There is logic and reason behind Chaos theory. There is no theoretical logic and reason behind the notion that prayer can effect an unrelated event. There are only supernatural explanations.

Hmmm. I think there is a theoretical logic and reason behind the notion that prayer can effect an unrelated event. It happens to be a supernatural explanation. Seems to me that people who believes in God can, quite rationally, also believe in prayer.

So, are you saying that anyone who accepts, as a logical premise the notion that God exists is irrational to think that prayer might persuade God to effect an event?

Or are you saying that anyone who accepts, as a premise, the notion that their God exists is irrational?

Or I am I still failing to understand your argument properly?

 

[Beth]

Okay, sorry.

Apparently, the Bible contains promises, made by God/Christ, that state whatever you pray for, you'll receive from God. Some of these verses contain conditions, such as "in Christ's name" or "believing," but all of them promise that whatever is asked for, is granted.

I maintain that my personal experience shows these promises are not kept. Even when the conditions are met, they are not kept. People who pray do not always get what they ask for, nor do they often get what they ask for.

There. I said "always," or rather, "not always." But I said it.
Now, should they always get what they ask for? The promises say they will. I'm not talking about practicality here, or necessity, or fairness, or feasibility. I'm saying that the promises say whatever you ask for, provided the conditions are met, you'll receive.

And I'm asking: why does that not seem to be true?
It should be true: it was promised. Maybe the conditions weren't properly met after all, though, because that is a requirement, right? But how are you to know, except by the fact that you don't get what you asked for? What if you never get whatever it is you asked for, from material thing to emotional state? What if all you asked for was comfort from God (not from other people doing his will, but God, himself), and you didn't get any? Why continue to be a believer, since it is obvious you are not pleasing to God, and can't even manage to muster enough belief to get a simple prayer granted? Isn't the fact that your prayers go unanswered enough proof that you actually don't believe in God, even though you apparently thought you did?

I can't answer your questions. I've never believed in such things, nor do I find such a religious viewpoint appealing or compelling. It would certainly be rational for someone whose prayers went unanswered to give up on their faith. However, it's equally rational for those who feel their prayers are answered, in some form or another, to maintain their faith. Belief and non-belief seem equally rational positions to me. That's why I'm agnostic.

It seems that when most prayers are answered/granted, the answer could be explained by other things. Impossible prayers (impossible for humans, but not for a god) never seem to get the desired response.

God is, supposedly, a god. Not a person: a god. If a god makes promises, it is shameful for the god to renege. I don't want to worship, can't worship, a god who can't keep his own promises, not even one time.

So that's why I am both saying and not saying "always." The bible tells me it should be always, but I'd be happy if one--just one--amputee prayed for his leg to grow back, and I could watch it grow back right before my eyes.

Just one.

I don't think you'll see that happen. Even Jesus, who supposedly could raise the dead, was never reputed to regrow an amputed limb. If you hold such a miracle as your standard of proof, you're safe from lapsing into belief again.

 

[Tricky]

Sure you can say that it works. What's stopping anyone from saying that? Not you (duh), but also not your argument. You're just saying something that others disagree with.

Yep. We disagree on the meaning of “it works”. We ought to get that agreed upon.

As for objective definitions, before there were objective definitions things worked, so I don't think that the presence of an objective definition is needed for anything other than, I guess, a coping mechanism. Why else would you *need* it? Would things *not* work if we couldn't objectively define them?

It is easy to define what “working” would entail. It is the essence of the Randi challenge. You simply agree that certain outcomes mean it works and other outcomes mean it doesn’t. If you wish to say prayer works, then you say what it means in advance. But unless you can find some way to demonstrate that the outcome satisfied the agreed-upon definition, then the term means nothing.

“Truth” is another one of those things like this. You hear people say all the time “It is true for me.” But if truth is not demonstrably true for everyone, how can you possibly call it truth?

And again, I don't feel any need to do such a thing. If there's an *actual* communication/relationship going down, this is an irrelevant point to the people *involved* in the relationship, in two ways. First, in the way that people pray anyhow and will continue to do so, and second, in the actuality itself independent of skepticism.

It is NOT irrelevant to the people involved. It would be like saying “write a letter to me and I promise you your son in Iraq will read it.” Yes, you may feel better by doing it, but if it were exposed as a fake, do you not think the people who were told a falsehood would be outraged? No, it is not irrelevant at all if your heartfelt communication with God is not actually reaching its destination and you have no way of telling it.

Exactly, which is why I don't consider people who believe in Santa Claus to be irrational.

Even after they learn that reindeer can’t fly, and that it would be physically impossible to visit every household in the world (or even a medium sized city) in a single night? You think it would still be rational for them to believe it? Yes, I can see we will never agree on what rational means.

No, there can be other excuses...unless, you mean the only good excuse. Is that what you mean? Sorry, you're welcome to say that you mean exactly what you say...

Yeah. “Good” was implied. Obviously, anybody can make a bad excuse. I mean an excuse which is not either unverifiable or self-contradictory.

Also, it may be ignorant to say that something is irrational when it isn't irrational...not something I want to push but I'm just throwing it out there.

Not pushing it is wise.

Right. I tend to think that just about everybody is rational. The irrational ones get weeded out pretty quick. I know it makes people feel *really good about themselves* to dub others as irrational, and that's all I think that is. Ubermenschianism. Let's debate topics and not call people names.

As I’ve said earlier, we are all rational about some things and irrational about others. When I say “irrational” I am only referring to the specific topic being discussed. I’m not talking about my irrational fear of cockroaches. If calling you irrational about God is an insult to you, then at least let it be a limited one. You can call me a coward about roaches without me considering that you think I am totally craven.

Make you a deal. If God is imaginary, oh well! Deal?

Um… I’m not sure I see the deal here. I get a posthumous apology from a person who I didn’t wish dead?

Since I don't think God is imaginary, and since just about everybody who prays also doesn't think that God is imaginary, a religious believer can be in absolute agreement with your above statement.

Yet God satisfies the description of imaginary beings. Not visible to others (as in do you see the same thing)? Check. Not audible (the same way) to others? Check. No objective evidence of His existence? Check.

What does it take for you to consider a thing imaginary?

I disagree. There may be a hell of a good reason for a person to talk to an imaginary friend, and if there is, I'm not going to call that person a name. If it gets the job done for them, that's great. I don't need to impose a label on others who have different needs than I do. Except the Ubermenschian thing, but that's in response to others who call other people names and it's done for rhetorical reasons.

I don’t consider calling someone “irrational” to be calling them a name. I freely admit that I am so in many ways. I consider it identifying a trait they have. One might say, “you are indecisive” if you observe them pondering over a menu after the waiter’s third visit. Is that the same as calling them a name?

And I don’t have a problem with irrational people. I’m married to one who believes in auras, karma and crystal healing, yet I love her dearly. I do wish she weren’t so irrational, but it does not keep me from loving her.

I agree. What's this need thing all about?

Ya know. Search for truth. That kind of stuff. If it is my weakness to need to know the truth, then that’s my cross to bear (to borrow a metaphor).

I agree that you may have limitations that I and other religious believers do not have.

Yep. I am limited by my inability to believe myths. Damn cross.

Since I don't think God is imaginary your point kind of goes right over me head.

Try it if you imagine God is imaginary. I can imagine God. Can you imagine the absence of God?

As for inquiries, the sort of inquiries I would engage with on this matter are not scientific inquiries. They're on a different level, and you can label those as you'd like as well. I think it's clear that I am comfortable in my belief in God. I'll take full responsibility for that. If I'm wrong, oh well.

Yep. Wasted a lot of your life in a fruitless pursuit. Oh well.

I think it is rational. Maybe you can say that I need to think that it is rational. If it's irrational, oh well.

As I say, you and I aren’t likely to agree on what is rational. If you’re right, oh well.

I sort of care. There are things I certainly care about a heck of a lot more.

Me too. I consider these boards a diversion. They are far from the most important thing in my life. But here we both are. Shall we joust?

Again you're trying to force me into a dichotomy. Either I care to the extent that you care, or I don't care at all. I think relatively speaking you can take my, I think, evident nonchalance as me not caring. But really, if I didn't care I don't think I'd be engaged in this whole rational/irrational thing. I do care in my own way. I don't care in the way that you care.

Fairly spoken. I have tried to corner you (this being a debate and all). But I will state clearly that I don’t think that your “caring” is an off/on thing. I think you care less than I about this particular issue. You almost certainly care more about other issues that I also agree are important. But in the interest of staying on topic, I present a situation where you can show you care more or you care less. I’d argue that is not truly a dichotomy, but a direction, and relative to this issue only.

[monty python]After all, if we are to argue, I must take up a position contrary to yours. [/monty python]

I'm more interested in whether or not my beliefs are objectively wrong, or objectively right. That means oodles more to me than this rational/irrational biz.

In my opinion, they are the same thing, yet both are sliding scales, not dichotomies.

Not in the way we would have it, no. Not in the way I *introduced* this thread, if you care to check the original post.

I don’ need no steeking original post. I’m on a roll here.

Yet I doubt that you would take the extreme view that prayers have zero connection to results, just as you obviously agree that prayers do not have 100% correlation with results. You would seem to be somewhere in the middle. I’m admittedly pretty close to the “zero results” pole, but I will argue that my position is based on evidence. Yet I would also agree that I would be willing to shift positions if objective evidence came to light.

Not in the way we have it, no. God will not be forced to accede to our will in the way we would have him accede to our will.

That is not, and has never been my position. I am not trying to force God to do tricks for me. I just want evidence that he does something. Anything. So far, I have seen no evidence whatsoever.

No dictionary definition I checked (five in the past few minutes) attaches lack of evidence to irrationality. And I have no desire to go any further into this particular point. I see you want to be dogmatic about how to define rational and irrational, and I'm not interested in such dogma, other than to say what I just said...and I'll say it again. Five dictionary definitions or irrational. Not one which mentions the words evidence.

You are correct. The word they use is “reason”. You and I will not agree as to whether or not that means evidence.

I have admitted that one of my own assumptions by which I reason is that real things have evidence for them. I feel that if this assumption were discarded, then there would be no way of telling what is real. I’m funny that way.

 

[RandFan]

You in fact are erecting the very straw man that you claim that you're not erecting by insisting that #1 below is true, when in fact you are interpreting some passages of scripture in a way that no Christians that I know of interpret it.

I want to work with you here Bri. I'll change #1. There exist a number of scriptures in the Bible that clearly promise that God will answer all prayers --"all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive".

Would it be reasonable for a Christian to infer from this scripture that God can grant miracles? Not every, not all (even though it says "all things"). Is there anything in this scripture or any other that would limit God's power?

Why are there categories of prayer that are never answered?

The word "can" that I've embolden here usually means "can possibly" when used in this context. If you're using it in a different way, please clarify. Otherwise, you've already admitted that it's possible that belief in prayer influences events, then such a belief is rational by your own admission.

All things are possible. It's possible for a person to fly by flapping his or her arms. That all things are possible does not mean that it is rational to believe all things. So, ok, it's not irrational to simply believe that something is possible. It is irrational to act in a way that is counter to logic and reason. There is no rational basis to believe that an act (prayer) that is not connected to events can influence those events.

Of course, you've obfuscated the term "irrational" by recently using phrases like "less rational" or "more rational" to make it difficult to tell exactly what you're saying...

I am honestly and sincerely trying to be accommodating. Tricky made that distinction and you said you agreed that it was appropriate. Please be fair to me. If I make a mistake I apologize. I have admitted making mistakes in this thread and apologized. If I wanted to obfuscate I would not have admitted my mistake and I would not have appologized..

You've wisely added the parenthetical "as far as we know" to #2 which changes its implications drastically.

No.

There are no unicorns (as far as we know).
The government is not out to get me (as far as I know).
There are no leprechauns (as far as we know).
Humans can't fly by flapping their hands (as far as we know).
Zeus doesn't live atop Mount Olympus (as far as we know.

1.) I have said over and over that I hold all beliefs provisionally.
2.) I have said over and over that all things are possible (that are not logically impossible).

The statement stands. It is a falsifiable claim and you are free to falsify it. I await your doing so. However, until you demonstrate that a human can fly by simply flapping his or her arms then the belief that it is more likely than not that someone actually can fly by flapping his or her arms will remain irrational.

#3 seems to be accurate.

Wow, well hold me down and slap me silly. And mayonnaise on the elbow to cure colds doesn't work any better than chance. And it could work. Is it rational for me to put mayonnaise on my elbow?

#4 doesn't accurately describe prayer as Christians believe it, and even if it did, it doesn't seem to follow from the other statements except perhaps for very narrow definitions of "irrational" which would allow other beliefs that you have previously held to be rational to also be irrational.

#4 is a premise. It isn't meant to accurately describe prayer as Christians believe it. It has nothing to do with that. Bri, #4 only applies to any Christian who believing that his disconnected actions has some likelihood of influencing events. The more a person believes that his actions (prayer) are likely to alter a course of events the more irrational his beliefs.

I can't make heads or tails of these two sentences. I'm not sure what you mean by "the more likely a person believes" so I'll wait to comment until you clarify. Also, please clarify what you mean by "can" in this case, if you mean something other than "can possibly."

Person A: Believes that a rabbits foot might influence events but isn't fervent in his belief.
Person B: Believes that rabbits feet are far more likely than not to work and never leaves home without one.

Person B is more irrational than person A.

Finally, what definition of mine have you reworded here?

I'm having difficulty finding it. I'll stop referring to it until I do.

 

[RandFan]

Hmmm. I think there is a theoretical logic and reason behind the notion that prayer can effect an unrelated event. It happens to be a supernatural explanation.

And there are supernatural explanations behind rabbits feet, four-leaf clover and horse shoes.

Seems to me that people who believes in God can, quite rationally, also believe in prayer.

No more than people who believe in any other superstition can be rational.

So, are you saying that anyone who accepts, as a logical premise the notion that God exists is irrational to think that prayer might persuade God to effect an event?

No more so than a schizophrenic who accepts, as a logical premise, that the voices inside his head can make it rain.

Or are you saying that anyone who accepts, as a premise, the notion that their God exists is irrational?

Yes, a belief in God is quite irrational. That is my opinion.

 

[RandFan]

So why are you trying to make a point out single verses then? Why not just say the Bible is incoherent?

Because there are people who accept those verses.

To tell us that we should pray.

Then why not simply tell us to pray?

No. I've already given the parts that should be read to understand Christian prayer. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read. Most of the time would be spent in finding the verses actually, as opposed to reading them.

Uh, how long would it take someone to find all of the necessary verses and how would that person be certain that he or she had all of the most important ones?

But I won't agree with #2. Sometimes the answer could be *wait*. Is that not an answer?

Couldn't "no" be an answer? So, I'll rephrase the answer, God does not answer every prayers in the affirmative.

He answers all prayers in his own way, and sometimes the answer can be *no*. Like if I prayed that I be Jesus on Mondays and Wednesdays and Jesus be Jesus only on Saturdays but that I also be Jesus on Saturdays too and if the phone rings then my dog Hu-Chu is Jesus but not if the phone rings only twice in which case the phone is Jesus.

I have conceded that those things that are not logically possible are exempt. Your argument is a waste of time. Let's stick with reasonable and logically possible requests.

With Matthew 18:19...WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT VERSE 20 which completes the thought?

With Matthew 20:22, the verse directly preceding it says "have faith and do not waver". And does he say he say *WHEN* we will receive what we ask for? NO!

So if a grieving father prays fervently all night for God to spare him his child and she dies, it was the father's fault?

 

[RandFan]

Exactly, which is why I don't consider people who believe in Santa Claus to be irrational.

I think that speaks for itself and it speaks volumes. What is irrational in your book?

 

[Anacoluthon64]

I don't think you'll see that happen. Even Jesus, who supposedly could raise the dead, was never reputed to regrow an amputed (sic) limb. If you hold such a miracle as your standard of proof, you're safe from lapsing into belief again.

A curious observation. Our best current understanding surely rates resurrection from death as a considerably more difficult task than regenerating a limb (c.f. stem cells, though it's early days yet).

In any case, believing prayer in and of itself to be capable of affecting the course of objective events is irrational for the same reason that believing that the sun will rise in the West tomorrow is irrational: each belief has an inordinately tiny probability of being true; in each case an extraordinarily problematical mechanism is required to bring about the reality of the belief, and in each case a violation of well-established understanding would occur.

Note that the above says nothing of the psychological, emotional and/or purported spiritual effects prayer may have on people.

So let us now join hands and pray that the sun shall rise in the East tomorrow.

'Luthon64