Prayer and power

[RandFan]

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.

That's not what you said. If you had I wouldn't have responded.

Here, let's look at it again.

The fact that we don't know for certain of his existence is solid evidence...

"Don't know" "is solid evidence". It sure looks like you did say that lack of knowledge is evidence.

I did NOT in any way imply that this was solid evidence of anything.

I beg to differ.

 

[Ossai]

Bri

There is little evidence that prayer never works.

Sorry, but that is not how it works. You are declaring prayer effective, therefore you must provide evidence to support your position.

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.

Moving the goalposts, again. At lease you clearly state it this time as you move it squarely to the post-hoc rationalization section of the field.

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.

Then explain the thousands upon thousands of Christians flocking to the latest ‘Virgin Mary’ sighting, or weeping statue, or nun in a bun, or …


To everyone except Bri.
Bri is spending so much time running in circles that there is no demonstrable advancement. At this point it may be best to hit the basics and make sure she actually understands them.
Actually define evidence, logical fallacies, faith, trust, belief, etc or at least provide a few links that she may read.

Ossai

 

[elliotfc]

Okay, lets say all faiths are equal. So since they are all equal, faith, as a way of determining truth, is worthless, because there is no way of discrimminating between well-placed faith and poorly-placed faith.

I don't think that faith *is* a way of determining truth, nor have I ever tried to advance that notion.

Okay, lets say all faiths are not equal. How do you determine which one is closest to truth without relying on your preferred faith?

Or how *did* I. I didn't have a faith, and then I did. I dunno. I examined several different faiths. Then I picked one.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I don't think so, either.

Cancer treatments exist.

Cancer treatments can be shown to exist.

It is not irrational to believe that cancer treatments exist.

I disagree with nothing you said above, but I was trying to suggest that God is more like a person, or a personality, than he is a procedure.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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.

I disagree.

I understand your point. I really, really do. I understood Bri's point, I really, really do. In the end it is nonsensical. It is illogical and the flaw is not in the assumption that God exists. The absence of evidence is simply the absence of evidence. No more, no less, here or in bizzaro world. I'll have to re-read Alice in the looking glass but I'm not sure if it is even evidence there either.

I disagree. Don't have anything further to add on this end.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I read it, and I don't see how it explains how Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational but other beliefs which are not based on solid evidence can be considered rational.

When it comes to many posters in this thread, I do recognize that it *IS* necessary to believe that Christian belief in prayer is irrational.

-Elliot

 

[Tricky]

When it comes to many posters in this thread, I do recognize that it *IS* necessary to believe that Christian belief in prayer is irrational.

-Elliot

It is not "necessary", but since it fits the definition of irrational, it makes sense to call prayer irrational. Why should we rewrite definitions because some Christians don't like them?

 

[Anacoluthon64]

To everyone except Bri.
Bri is spending so much time running in circles that there is no demonstrable advancement. At this point it may be best to hit the basics and make sure she actually understands them.
Actually define evidence, logical fallacies, faith, trust, belief, etc or at least provide a few links that she may read.

Seconded, although it is IMO futile to expect that any contrary argument, however basic or compelling, will be met with something other than slipperiness of the semantic pedantry, misrepresentation, speciousness and/or affected deficiency-of-understanding varieties. Though based on much empirical evidence, I may, of course, be wrong.

'Luthon64

 

[Tricky]

I don't think that faith *is* a way of determining truth, nor have I ever tried to advance that notion.

Here is where we differ. I want the things I believe in to be true.

Or how *did* I. I didn't have a faith, and then I did. I dunno. I examined several different faiths. Then I picked one.

And it is telling that you picked the one which is most common in your culture and with which (I am guessing) you are most familiar and comfortable. Though your version of Christianity varies a bit from most others I have seen (in a good way ), it is well within the cultural norm.

 

[elliotfc]

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.

Yes and no. Christ calls us to be perfect, yet none of us are perfect. We set the highest possible standards, we will never reach those standards, yet we still have the highest possible standards.

You are correct, I don't accept suffering as in...I walk down the street and I see a kid bleeding to death and I ignore it. In that way I don't accept suffering. I do accept suffering in the sense that I know that I can work my whole life to fight suffering and there will still be suffering.

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

Well this is more of an active deal. I certainly wasn't suggesting that in accepting suffering (and I've explained that), I'm now free to actively hurt other people, willfully and with the intent to make them suffer.

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.

This is a uncommon and visible tragedy. In less intense and more private tragedies, the same could be said.

My point remains. Christians understand that we will all suffer and die. Miracles *will not* invalidate this. Also, the most compelling tragic events will not be invalidated while others will be allowed. Things will unfold as they unfold, in this life of ours.

Do I ask you to agree with this? No, of course not, I know you reject my premises. But the Christian understanding is what it is. There is no internal disfunctionality in our beliefs. It may *manifest* itself in any given situation, just as we may *commit an act of sin* in any given situation.

The problem I have with miracles is that they are so arbitrary...

Arbitrary in the sense that God is the deciding factor, yes. Arbitrary in that we can't possibly produce a template that God would follow in performing miracles.

...and faith has no demonstrable link to any of them.

This is probably irrelevant to those who would disagree if only from personal experience.

Also, it could be demonstrable, but that would depend on your chosen standards of demonstrability.

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.

Yet I think we DO IN FACT BELIEVE that we are subject to...well...at least uncaring forces...but also random forces as well. So I don't have anything to make of this point, since I reject the premise. As for "wanting" to be, or not "wanting" to be, I think that is irrelevant, and I could say the same thing about you. Everything you believe is because you want to believe it, and the things you don't believe you don't want to believe. This is not helpful at all in my opinion. Is it true? Sure, and if so, it's true for everybody. But you as an individual would disagree? And what if a Christian as an individual would disagree. Thus the unhelpfulness.

Christians just believe because it makes them feel good. That's fine.

I think you believe that just because it makes *you* feel good.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

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.

OK...the possibility of some kind of God...that's *not* irrational. Is there evidence for that? Most people say no...but it's still not an irrational belief.

And...the possibility that God answers prayers...that's irrational. Is there evidence that God answers prayers? Most people say no....but it's still an irrational belief.

I don't get the distinction. I'll remember it Tricky, but I don't get it.

Belief that God exists is a completely different proposition from "some kind of God is possible".

Define God. And when you do that, you've just proposed that some kind of God is possible. Why? Because others will define God differently.

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.

I don't think that existence is contingent upon our definitions to define what we can't define. We can't define *other* intelligent life elsewhere in the universe just because we can define intelligent life here. You *say* we can define intelligent life elsewhere, and that's just bluster.

Meaning...actually do it then. Actually define intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, with all the specs and all the trimmings.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Thanks for the thread folks, I'm no longer interested in debating the rationality of prayer, but I'm OK with everyone who thinks its irrational, because it doesn't really matter, does it?. -Elliot

 

[Tricky]

Thanks for the thread folks, I'm no longer interested in debating the rationality of prayer, but I'm OK with everyone who thinks its irrational, because it doesn't really matter, does it?. -Elliot

So long Elliot. See you in other threads.

But yes, it DOES matter. It matters a great deal. If a person decides to use prayer as a way of solving problems (for example, curing a disease) then it is extremely important that the prayer works. This is especially important if they forgo well-established medical procedures in favor of prayer.

If prayer doesn't work, it is important to know that.

 

[Tricky]

OK...the possibility of some kind of God...that's *not* irrational. Is there evidence for that? Most people say no...but it's still not an irrational belief.

And...the possibility that God answers prayers...that's irrational. Is there evidence that God answers prayers? Most people say no....but it's still an irrational belief.

I don't get the distinction. I'll remember it Tricky, but I don't get it.

There are an infinite number of possibilities. Therefore is incorrect to say something (other than a logical contradiction) is impossible because one cannot examine an infinite number of things. However, something can be highly improbable based on (non-infinite) evidence. To believe in something that is highly improbable is irrational. I know you're outta here, but I thought I'd try to clarify that first.

Define God. And when you do that, you've just proposed that some kind of God is possible. Why? Because others will define God differently.

That's the thing. "Some kind of God" is undefined. It has an unbounded number of possibilities. But as soon as you give definitions to God, then you create bounded, testable hypotheses. Each different way that other people define God can be tested by saying "is there any evidence for a thing which fits this definition?"

I don't think that existence is contingent upon our definitions to define what we can't define. We can't define *other* intelligent life elsewhere in the universe just because we can define intelligent life here. You *say* we can define intelligent life elsewhere, and that's just bluster.

Meaning...actually do it then. Actually define intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, with all the specs and all the trimmings.

We have definitions of "life". We have definitions of "intelligent". If you find something that fits both definitions, then you have intelligent life. Note that SETI is the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Not the search for intelligent life. They might be able to tell the intelligent part from radio signals and such, but they couldn't tell the "life" part without closer examination.

 

[Freethinker]

Bri, I did read the whole thing. I just quoted the part where your logic jumped the tracks. Look at these two quotes:

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.

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.

They are substantially different. I wouldn't argue too much with the logical soundness of the second, but I'll reiterate that the first is nonsensical. The fact that we don't know for certain that god exists is solid evidence for one thing only: That we aren't aware of any solid evidence that he does exist.

The bible is full of instances where god made himself known to both believers and unbelievers. Then he just quit. Puzzling, isn't it? It's only puzzling from a "Christian perspective" as Elliot calls it. It's puzzling to Christians, but atheists aren't the least bit puzzled by it. He quit appearing because people became less gullible and didn't believe the outlandish stories that had no evidence anymore. Very much similar to the fact that there hasn't been a huge increase in the number of UFO or bigfoot pictures in the last few years with everybody and their brother owning a camcorder and carrying a camera phone with them all of the time.
I truly doubt your point that very many Christians think god doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. Church newsletters are full of people giving glory to god for the strength he gave them to get through the horrible ordeal of rebuilding their home after the tornado god sent destroyed it. The largest Christian denomination believes to this day that human beings can perform (or at least get god to perform) miracles. Miracles would of course be directly answered prayers that did exactly what the saint-in-waiting (or priest in the case of transubstantiation) asked god for.

The whole "god doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence" deal is just a copout to explain why god doesn't appear in burning bushes or directly intercede in the lives of humans anymore. Just another way of saying the ultimate Christian copout: "God works in mysterious ways."

 

[Bri]

You can't throw out the example of life we have.

Of course not. Life we have (ours) is evidence that it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. But it is not evidence that life does exist elsewhere in the galaxy.

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.

Not necessarily. If something exists in one place, it shows that it is possible in another place. However, we don't know why or how intelligent life exists here, and therefore we have no reason to believe that it exists elsewhere.

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.

If you had never seen another lawn with worms, then you would have no idea what range of conditions are necessary to support worm life. You would therefore have no reason to assume that other lawns existed that could support worm life, aside from sheer speculation.

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.

It is just as rational to believe that cherubs exist in other lawns as in your lawn (since you've never seen one anywhere). However, whether it is rational or irrational to believe that cherubs exist in any lawn (including yours) would depend on the belief and the reasons for holding it.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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

I'm not. I believe I said that we are in complete agreement.

There is evidence that prayer doesn't work.

There is evidence that prayer doesn't work ALL the time.

There is no evidence that prayer NEVER works.

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.

I agree. Both are opinions, but only one is based on strong evidence.

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

I agree. Both are entirely false. Since you've already admitted that the sun won't necessarily rise tomorrow, I'll take your answer as a "no" (that belief in prayer is not necessarily irrational). Again, we are in agreement.

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

I don't, so no need to object.

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".

Your comments throughout this thread were reason to question whether you believe that prayer is necessarily irrational. If you had simply agreed earlier that belief in prayer isn't necessarily irrational rather than disagreeing, then the thread would have been much shorter.

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.

OK. Well, it sounds as though you agree with your provisions, but I'll admit that I'm still confused about that. If there's one that you don't agree with, please let us know why.

-Bri

 

[drkitten]

When it comes to many posters in this thread, I do recognize that it *IS* necessary to believe that Christian belief in prayer is irrational.

Only in the sense that it *IS* necessary to believe that seven is a prime number, or that six is an even number, or that insects, taxonomically, have six legs.

Words have meanings. It *IS* necessary to know and apply those meanings to use the words correctly.

 

[Tricky]

Of course not. Life we have (ours) is evidence that it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy. But it is not evidence that life does exist elsewhere in the galaxy.

The existence of a single example dramatically increases the probability of other examples.

Not necessarily. If something exists in one place, it shows that it is possible in another place. However, we don't know why or how intelligent life exists here, and therefore we have no reason to believe that it exists elsewhere.

As I've said over and over again, everything except logical contradictions is possible. We are dealing in probabilities. See above.

If you had never seen another lawn with worms, then you would have no idea what range of conditions are necessary to support worm life. You would therefore have no reason to assume that other lawns existed that could support worm life, aside from sheer speculation.

You would know that worms existed in your lawn. You would know that other lawns (that from a distance resembled yours) existed. It would not be "sheer speculation". It would be a data-supported extrapolation.

It is just as rational to believe that cherubs exist in other lawns as in your lawn (since you've never seen one anywhere). However, whether it is rational or irrational to believe that cherubs exist in any lawn (including yours) would depend on the belief and the reasons for holding it.

Is it just as rational to believe that cherubs exist as that worms exist on other lawns? One is based on no evidence. One is based on an extrapolation of evidence. I'm hoping you realize this important difference and that you are just arguing for the sake of being contentious, but so far, I have no evidence for that.

 

[RandFan]

Well this is more of an active deal. I certainly wasn't suggesting that in accepting suffering (and I've explained that), I'm now free to actively hurt other people, willfully and with the intent to make them suffer.

This has nothing to do with my point.

This is a uncommon and visible tragedy. In less intense and more private tragedies, the same could be said.

We agree, the same could be said...

My point remains. Christians understand that we will all suffer and die. Miracles *will not* invalidate this. Also, the most compelling tragic events will not be invalidated while others will be allowed. Things will unfold as they unfold, in this life of ours.

And things will unfold as they unfold whether we believe in God or not.

Do I ask you to agree with this? No, of course not, I know you reject my premises. But the Christian understanding is what it is. There is no internal disfunctionality in our beliefs. It may *manifest* itself in any given situation, just as we may *commit an act of sin* in any given situation.

We very much disagree. First off I don't think Christian "understanding" is monolithic. Hardly. Christian belief is many things. Many do hope for miracles. Many hope that if the are struck with an affliction that God will intercede on their behalf.

Arbitrary in the sense that God is the deciding factor, yes. Arbitrary in that we can't possibly produce a template that God would follow in performing miracles.

Arbitrary is arbitrary. We can say that God is the deciding factor but that really doesn't mean anything. It's still arbitrary.

This is probably irrelevant to those who would disagree if only from personal experience.

I don't doubt, the people that pay the millions for ineffective cures would also disagree from personal experience.

Also, it could be demonstrable, but that would depend on your chosen standards of demonstrability.

I don't agree.

Yet I think we DO IN FACT BELIEVE that we are subject to...well...at least uncaring forces...but also random forces as well. So I don't have anything to make of this point, since I reject the premise. As for "wanting" to be, or not "wanting" to be, I think that is irrelevant, and I could say the same thing about you. Everything you believe is because you want to believe it, and the things you don't believe you don't want to believe. This is not helpful at all in my opinion. Is it true? Sure, and if so, it's true for everybody. But you as an individual would disagree? And what if a Christian as an individual would disagree. Thus the unhelpfulness.

But this isn't true. I want to believe in God. I would love for there to be a God. The realization that there simply was no reason other than wanting to believe in God was tragic and sad for me.

I think you believe that just because it makes *you* feel good.

No, I believe that because I made a commitment to accept truth no matter what that truth was.