Prayer and power

[Bri]

That is quite possibly the most nonsensical thing I've ever read. I presume then that the fact that we don't know for certain that the Tooth Fairy exists is solid evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists. Wow, I bow in the face of this irrefuteable logic.

Freethinker, please read the entire paragraph rather than choosing one sentence out of context. I wrote:

If God exists, then there is solid evidence that he doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Since he is omnipotent, God could make us aware of his existence if he chose to do so. The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

(emphasis added). This was based on the assumption that God exists, which Christians undoubtedly believe, and which is also undoubtedly implied in the Christian belief in prayer. IF God exists, his omnipotence would certainly include the power to ensure that we would know for certain of his existence. We don't know for certain that he exists, and therefore it follows that IF God exists, it is quite likely that he doesn't want us to know for certain that he exists.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I don't think God is commensurate to something like treatment for cancer.

We are going to suffer. We are going to die. This is the human condition. God allows for these realities. There are dogmas behind these realities. Prayer will not eliminate suffering and death *in the way we would have it do so*. We believe that all prayers are perfectly answered in Christ. Christ will do away with our suffering and death, but not in this life as it is.

None of us want to suffer in this life. Yet many of us suffer far worse than others. One of the hallmarks of many Christians is to mitigate suffering in others. Christians don't simply accept suffering as a foregone conclusion for themselves or others.

"When you have done it unto the least of these my bretheren..." --Matthew 25:40

Miracles are thus either a foretaste of things to come, signs of God's power, special interventions as part of a greater plan, etc. They are not the focal point of Christian belief (on a personal level, of course you could consider Jesus to be a miracle...and maybe you should, but whatever). If they were the focal point of Christian belief, I wouldn't be a Christian. We aren't saved by miracles, but by an event that happened 2000 years ago.

That's fine but understand that it is very much apart of scripture and testimony. People relate the things in their lives that they attribute to miracles. No one is disabusing them of that. The message or belief doesn't seem to be that life is suffering and death.

I've said several times that prayer brings us closer to God. Will we all die, and will we all suffer? Yes. Prayer will not do away with death and suffering. Now, from a certain perspective it actually *does*, for we believe that Christ was an answered prayer, but I don't think you're interested in that point.

I'm happy to grant that prayer and the belief in salvation can bring comfort and hope.

I think they have particular points, and not general points. That's a very personal question. I think I had one event in my life which I consider to be miraculous. I don't think it has any point to anyone but myself. Nor do I expect it to. It happened to me. I don't obsess over it either. It happened.

I think miracles can happen to people who don't pray for them. Sure.

I don't think that prayer is about miracles happening to people BTW, I'm not sure if that's the operating understanding behind this particular post.

I was watching live the unfolding scene of the miners trapped underground because of an explosion in VA. I think the families sincerely prayed for a miracle. I think they sincerely hoped for a miracle. I think they were ready to proclaim God's hand in this miracle. Sadly it did not come to pass.

The problem I have with miracles is that they are so arbitrary and faith has no demonstrable link to any of them. I think Christian rhetoric is multi faceted. Christians believe in and want miracles. They don't want to be subject to random and uncaring forces so they put a mysterious and caring being behind those forces but in the end they are still indistinguishable from random forces and there is no evidence that the force cares. Christians just believe because it makes them feel good. That's fine.

 

[Bri]

{sigh}

1.) I did not use the word necessarily. You did.

I didn't say you did. I said that we are in complete agreement. Why are you still arguing?

What "opinion" for which there is little or no evidence? My position on prayer is based on the laws of physics and reason as is the sun rising. If you ask me if I had a grandfather I would say yes. I can't prove it. Both are dead. If you said that I had over stated my case I would say no. If you said that I did not necessarily have a grandfather I would have to concede that YOUR view is possible since all things are possible and I could have been put here by aliens. It is NOT MY VIEW.

Again, there is plenty of evidence that you had grandparents. There is plenty of evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is little evidence that prayer never works.

It is not my view that prayer is not necessarily irrational.
It is not my view that the sun will not necessarily rise tomorrow.

Emphasis mine. Too many negatives. Yes or no: Is it your view that prayer is necessarily irrational?

"Absolute fact"? If you agree with P5 and P6 then why make this statement? You are being inconsistent. You either subscribe to P5 and P6 or you don't. If you do agree with P5 then stop saying "absolute fact" in the context of our discussion.

Again, we are in complete agreement (assuming you accept your own propositions). I agree with P5 and P6, that there is a difference between "fact" and "absolute fact" and that science doesn't generally deal with absolute facts.

P4 is simply a proposition. I DON'T hold it.

You don't accept your own propositions? Then why did you list them?

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

I agree, but the key word here is "possibility." It is also possible for God to exist, so it would in no way be considered irrational to consider the possibility. The problem is that there is no evidence at all that either actually exists. If you label one as "rational" then you would likely have to label the other as "rational" as well unless you have thought of some criteria to distinguish between the two that isn't based on speculation.

Nobody here says that it is irrational to believe in the possibility of some kind of God. I stated earlier that everything is posible except logical (including mathematical) contradictions. But believing in a God that answers prayers is irrational because it is not based on evidence.

• Belief that something is possible even if there is no evidence - not irrational.
• Belief that something exists for which there is no evidence - irrational

Try to remember that.

Belief that God exists is a completely different proposition from "some kind of God is possible". And it is a completely different proposition from "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe." We have evidence that a well-defined intelligent life can be shown to exist at least one place in the universe. We have evidence of a lot of universe. It is a great deal more likely than the existence of a God because there are no examples of a well-defined God that can be shown to exist in the universe.

 

[Bri]

It may also be effective if it does something that it was *not* intended to do. Many people say things like....boy, I prayed for this, but I got that...and "that" was what I really needed after all!

When I said that a prayer is effective if it accomplishes what it is intended to accomplish, I meant if it accomplishes what God intends for it to accomplish. This is based on the assumption that Christians believe that prayers are accomplished by God.

There aren't any Christians participating in this thread! Besides me! I'm speaking from that perspective. And I think you're accurately representing it, as far as you are choosing to do so.

Well, I don't profess to know or understand all Christian beliefs. As you know, I'm not a Christian, so I can only go on what I have read or know first hand from Christians. I'm glad to hear from at least one Christian that I'm not terribly far off.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Thus ignorance become evidence.

The absense of evidence can only be the absense of evidence. No more. No less. To think otherwise is to abandon logic and reason.

I don't recall saying that ignorance was evidence. I only said that it was a lack of evidence. Please at least base your arguments on what I've said rather than what you wish I had said.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Accepting the conclusion of any argument that "starts with" a nonsensical premise is itself nonsensical.

I agree, but we are discussing Christian belief in this thread. Christians undoubtedly believe that God exists if they believe in prayer. It also would follow that many (if not all) Christians probably also believe that God doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Therefore, absence of evidence that prayer works isn't evidence that prayer doesn't work -- it's only a lack of evidence that it does.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

That the absense of any evidence is evidence of something is non-sensical in every sense.

I don't think elliotfc would disagree with that (nor did he say otherwise). I think he said that absence of any evidence that prayer works is NOT evidence that prayer doesn't work. Others were holding that absence of evidence is evidence that prayer doesn't work. Thanks for clarifying elliotfc's point though.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I don't recall saying that ignorance was evidence. I only said that it was a lack of evidence. Please at least base your arguments on what I've said rather than what you wish I had said.

Let's look at what you have said.

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

(emphasis mine) So, it is a fact that "we don't know for certain", right?

ig·no·rance (2nd entry)

n: the lack of knowledge

To not "know for certain" is to lack knowledge.

 

[Bri]

Bri is stating that assuming A is true, the fact that we don't know for certain that A is true is SOLID EVIDENCE of B. No. It isn't.

Again, I was simply defending the fact that Christians likely would agree that God doesn't want us to know of his existence, and therefore we wouldn't expect there to be evidence of prayer working.

I did NOT in any way imply that this was solid evidence of anything. In fact, I said that it was a lack of evidence, and nothing more. In fact, I have held all along that there is little to no evidence that prayer works. Likewise, there is little to no evidence that prayer never works.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

When I said that a prayer is effective if it accomplishes what it is intended to accomplish, I meant if it accomplishes what God intends for it to accomplish. This is based on the assumption that Christians believe that prayers are accomplished by God.

So let's see what we have here.

• You can't tell if it was accomplished.
• you can't tell what God intends.
• You can't tell if your assumptions have merit.

All three of these things are based on faith and faith alone. By definition, any belief that is based on faith and faith alone is irrational. (And before you go there, accepting a possibility is not a "belief". I accept the possibility that gravity will not work tomorrow. I do not believe that gravity will not work tomorrow.)

 

[Bri]

Nobody here says that it is irrational to believe in the possibility of some kind of God. I stated earlier that everything is posible except logical (including mathematical) contradictions. But believing in a God that answers prayers is irrational because it is not based on evidence.

Likewise, belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is not based on evidence. The only evidence is that intelligent life is possible elsewhere in the galaxy. Anything else is based upon pure speculation since we don't know exactly what conditions give rise to intelligent life. Specifically, we don't know how precise conditions must be to those of our planet in order for another planet to give rise to intelligent life.

• Belief that something is possible even if there is no evidence - not irrational.
• Belief that something exists for which there is no evidence - irrational

Try to remember that.

I'll do my best to remember that, but you remember that you're defining belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy to be irrational. I happen to disagree with those criteria, because I don't think all such beliefs are irrational.

Belief that God exists is a completely different proposition from "some kind of God is possible". And it is a completely different proposition from "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe." We have evidence that a well-defined intelligent life can be shown to exist at least one place in the universe. We have evidence of a lot of universe. It is a great deal more likely than the existence of a God because there are no examples of a well-defined God that can be shown to exist in the universe.

And yet, all the evidence only shows that it is possible that intelligent life may exist elsewhere, not that it actually does. Unless you can provide an example of intelligent life that exists elsewhere, that is.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Let's look at what you have said.

(emphasis mine) So, it is a fact that "we don't know for certain", right?

To not "know for certain" is to lack knowledge.

Yes, it is a fact that we don't know for certain that God exists. Yes, by your definition we are both ignorant of whether God exists and of whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. What's your point?

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

Likewise, there is little to no evidence that prayer never works.

When you start trying to defend "proving a negative" as a logical point, then you've gone over the edge.

• There is little to no evidence that rubbing a rabbit's foot has never caused good luck.
• There is little to no evidence that Thor has never caused thunder and lightning.
• There is little to no evidence that elephants have never mated with pigmy shrews.
• There is little to no evidence that gravity has never reversed itself.
• There is little to no evidence that monkeys have never flown out of my butt.

What else besides prayer would you consider it rational to believe simply because there is no evidence that it has never happened?

 

[Bri]

So let's see what we have here.

• You can't tell if it was accomplished.
• you can't tell what God intends.
• You can't tell if your assumptions have merit.

All three of these things are based on faith and faith alone. By definition, any belief that is based on faith and faith alone is irrational. (And before you go there, accepting a possibility is not a "belief". I accept the possibility that gravity will not work tomorrow. I do not believe that gravity will not work tomorrow.)

Christians do have evidence that God exists and that prayer works, but it may not be strong evidence. In fact, all opinions are based on some amount of faith (otherwise they wouldn't be opinions). I'm assuming that you're using the term "based on faith" to mean beliefs for which there is little evidence. I disagree that any belief that is based on faith is irrational since I think the belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy is rational.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

What else besides prayer would you consider it rational to believe simply because there is no evidence that it has never happened?

Christians don't believe in prayer simply because there is no evidence that it never happened.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

I'll do my best to remember that, but you remember that you're defining belief that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy to be irrational. I happen to disagree with those criteria, because I don't think all such beliefs are irrational.

You can't throw out the example of life we have. If you do, then you could just as easily throw out the second example (if it was found) and the third ad infinitum. Once a thing is shown to be possible in one place, the liklihood of it existing in another place is dramatically increased.

See if this example works for you.

I have found earthworms in my lawn. I have studied them closely and I know a lot about their characteristics. But I am not allowed to leave the yard so I have never closely examined any other lawns. As far as I know, they may be different vastly from my lawn. But since I know that earthworms can exist in lawns, it is not irrational to believe that they can exist in other lawns.

I have never found a cherub in my lawn. I have never seen one, examined one and I don't know the characteristics of and I have no evidence that they exist anywhere, other than some people talking about them. It is irrational to believe that cherubs may exist in other lawns.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't say you did. I said that we are in complete agreement. Why are you still arguing?

If we are in complete agreement why are you disputing what I'm saying?

Again, there is plenty of evidence that you had grandparents. There is plenty of evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is little evidence that prayer never works.

There is evidence that prayer doesn't work.

Your comparison is flawed because you are comparing the wrong concepts.

1. It is possible that prayer works.
2. It is possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow.

That #1 & #2 are both possible is not a reason to ad a provision to the following statements.

• The Sun will rise tomorrow.
• Prayer is irrational.

Yes or no: Is it your view that prayer is necessarily irrational?

No more and no less than the view that the sun necessarily will rise.

I would not use the term "necessarily" for either statement. However, If you do I don't object.

Again, we are in complete agreement (assuming you accept your own propositions). I agree with P5 and P6, that there is a difference between "fact" and "absolute fact" and that science doesn't generally deal with absolute facts.

Your statements belie you. If you accept P5 and P6 then there is no reason to question whether I believe that prayer is "necessarily irrational".

You don't accept your own propositions? Then why did you list them?

It's possible to list propositions to make a point. I confess that in that last statement I failed to make a clear point. The notion that all things are possible and therefore nothing is necessarily impossible is confusing.

I don't see the need to view any possibility as necessarily possible or the inverse, not necessarily impossible.

If I say the sun will rise tomorrow then I hold that position provisionally and it would be be perverse to withhold my consent.

 

[Tricky]

Christians don't believe in prayer simply because there is no evidence that it never happened.

-Bri

I know. But their beliefs are irrational unless they are based on evidence that it did happen. It is irrational because it is belief based on faith alone.

You were the one who threw out the the "there is no evidence that prayer never works." That is irrational too, but for a different reason. It is irrational because uses the the impossibility of verifying an infinite number of negatives as evidence of the positive.

And yeah, Christians try this tack from time to time too.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, it is a fact that we don't know for certain that God exists. Yes, by your definition we are both ignorant of whether God exists and of whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. What's your point?

Again, let's look at what you said.

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence that God might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

Lack of knowledge is not evidence of anything.

...whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy.

No one is arguing that lack of knowledge is evidence of inteligent life elswhere in the galaxy, unless I missed it. But if they did, you let me know and I will give 'em hell. Fair enough?