Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

Alan:

Do you have a methodology for assessing the "power of prayer" so as to be able to determine that prayer operates in the manner in which you presumably believe it does as compared to the operations of random chance? Because without such a methodology your belief in prayer is worthless, old fruit.

My assesment is simply this:
I often pray for something which I know is unlikeley to happen without God's help, but I have faith that God can do it.  And seemingly against all the odds it happens.

One example from history.  In the battle of Lepanto in the mediterranean, the Christian alliance were vastly outnumbered and less powerful than the Muslim forces.  The pope called upon the Christian population to pray the rosary to avoid defeat, and against all the odds the Muslims were defeated, and Europe was saved from what would have been total Muslim domination.  Following this victory, the Pope dedicated a special feast day to celebrate the power of the rosary which is still celebrated in the church callendar.

Is that the best example of divine intervention yu can come up with? From Britannica 'The Turkish force is said to have been larger but less well equipped and not so well disciplined.' and 'the Ottoman centre collapsed when Ali Pasha was killed '. So a hard fought battle and a victory for the smaller force but not unusual really.

[savillerow]

msg 2914 AB "This indicates that god needs human faith to enable his power on earth. . . . ." I cant say it any other way. Its drivel. I always wonder how grown people who can clearly get up in the morning, make a coffee, hold down a job and rely on all the wonders of mans cleverness in design, thought, research, invention and development can sideline their brains and go straight back to the caves!!! Its wierd.

[Alan Burns]

The difficulty of believing such obviously self-serving tripe, Alan. There's no such thing as sin and everything living dies - yes, you too, Alan. You, Mrs Alan, the little Alanettes, the birds in your garden, the worms under the back lawn - in short, if it lives, it's going to die at some point or other, and nobody and nothing can stop that. A rock can be destroyed as a rock (by being pulverised, let's say), but a tree dies, because a tree is alive and a rock isn't - death is a consequence of life, something that the theist is obligated to believe was set up by the god in whom they claim to believe. Unless you're of a certain bent which sees you believing in an afterlife for the birdies and the wormies, what you actually believe is that every single other species of living thing on the planet dies and dies completely and finally, but you're special enough to be kept around for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.

To (slightly) paraphrase my late hero Christopher Hitchens, I've been called arrogant in my time, but that's beyond my conceit. If you can't see that this is self-evidently a narrative created by humans fearful of death, you're beyond hope. It's entirely understandable on a psychological basis, no question of that; but that doesn't prevent it from being rather obnoxiously narcissistic and arrogant in a way that only religion can manage.

The biological machine we call the human body dies, but what happens to the driver?

And I am sure that the very clever, well thought out scenarios developed by Christpher Hitchen could never have been the product of mere deterministic chemical reactions in his brain.

[Alan Burns]

msg 2914 AB "This indicates that god needs human faith to enable his power on earth. . . . ." I cant say it any other way. Its drivel. I always wonder how grown people who can clearly get up in the morning, make a coffee, hold down a job and rely on all the wonders of mans cleverness in design, thought, research, invention and development can sideline their brains and go straight back to the caves!!! Its wierd.

Don't knock it until you have tried it.  Prayer with faith really does work for me, and many others.

And all the wonders of mans cleverness in design, thought, research, invention and development could not have happened without the driving force of human self awareness coupled with free will given by the human soul.

[BashfulAnthony]

The difficulty of believing such obviously self-serving tripe, Alan. There's no such thing as sin and everything living dies - yes, you too, Alan. You, Mrs Alan, the little Alanettes, the birds in your garden, the worms under the back lawn - in short, if it lives, it's going to die at some point or other, and nobody and nothing can stop that. A rock can be destroyed as a rock (by being pulverised, let's say), but a tree dies, because a tree is alive and a rock isn't - death is a consequence of life, something that the theist is obligated to believe was set up by the god in whom they claim to believe. Unless you're of a certain bent which sees you believing in an afterlife for the birdies and the wormies, what you actually believe is that every single other species of living thing on the planet dies and dies completely and finally, but you're special enough to be kept around for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.

To (slightly) paraphrase my late hero Christopher Hitchens, I've been called arrogant in my time, but that's beyond my conceit. If you can't see that this is self-evidently a narrative created by humans fearful of death, you're beyond hope. It's entirely understandable on a psychological basis, no question of that; but that doesn't prevent it from being rather obnoxiously narcissistic and arrogant in a way that only religion can manage.

The biological machine we call the human body dies, but what happens to the driver?

And I am sure that the very clever, well thought out scenarios developed by Christpher Hitchen could never have been the product of mere deterministic chemical reactions in his brain.

It was the product of alcohol-fueled narrow-mindedness.

[~TW~]

Alan these people you are trying to reason with are DEAD you can read about them here.

They are the THEM of this verse.                        9 And they swarmed up over the broad plain of the earth and encircled the fortress (camp) of God’s people (the saints) and the beloved city; but fire descended from heaven and consumed them.

~TW~

[Shaker]

The biological machine we call the human body dies, but what happens to the driver?

Why do you consider the "driver" to be separate and distinct from the rest of the "machine"? I see no reason to do so; why do you?

And I am sure that the very clever, well thought out scenarios developed by Christpher Hitchen could never have been the product of mere deterministic chemical reactions in his brain.

We all know how baseless are your grounds for all the things of which you claim sureness, though, Alan.

[Shaker]

Don't knock it until you have tried it. Prayer with faith really does work for me, and many others.

1. Confirmation bias.

2. What about the scads of perfectly sincere and genuine believers - every bit as sincere and genuine as you are, Alan - who pray and find their prayers unanswered? How does that slot into the jigsaw of your worldview? Don't they have quite enough faith? Are they doing it wrong? What's your attempt at an explanation here?

Remember, Alan, that despite being given every opportunity of so doing you haven't even attempted to advance any methodology by which prayer as you conceive of it might work as opposed to the operation of mere random chance. This renders your belief - any belief - in prayer vacuous, because you haven't shown a means of differentiating prayer - which entails a supernatural element to reality - from the operation of matter-energy in a matter-energy universe. So, in other words, you're bringing a knife to a gun-fight, in intellectual terms.

Let's put it this way. To demonstrate the efficacy of petitionary prayer (and it's petitionary prayer we're really talking about here - which is to say, importuning a supposed supernatural entity in order to bring about a personally desired event or outcome - rather than other forms such as meditative or contemplative prayer) you would need to establish a methodology by which you can compare a given course of events with prayer and its attendant supposed supernatural entity/entities and that same course of events without any such assumption. It's the same sort of thing as when scientists run an experiment with a control, for the same comparative purposes. You are incapable of doing this because you can't establish any such methodology which would discern a difference between a universe with a prayer-answering entity and a universe without one. Since a universe with a prayer-answering entity (a) lacks cogent and coherent definition, (b) lacks any evidence whatever, (c) is far better explained by human psychology and (d) falls foul of Occam's Razor, the hypothesis has to be rejected as entirely superfluous.

As Floo so rightly pointed out earlier today, what we actually see in practice from prayer-believers is a monumental case of confirmation bias, where any perceived "hits" are chalked up as strengthening the belief and all "misses" ignored/explained away in terms which in themselves strengthen the hypothesis. Thus when praying for a seriously ill person for example - an example chosen because we see so much of it so often; see any prayer thread on this or any other similar forum -, if said person recovers and survives this is regarded as "proof" of the power of prayer; if said person weakens further and dies, this is interpreted as "proof" that God has a different and presumably higher purpose for this person which involves their being a corpse and leaving behind grieving relatives and friends. You'll be able to notice, I'm sure, that in both cases the God hypothesis remains intact; there is no point at which the God hypothesis is considered to be weakened or disproven. It was, I think, Karl Popper who said that any idea which purports to explain everything actually explains nothing. This is a similar case; a hypothesis with no means of ascertaining its truth or falsity is junk and should be junked. That's why the concept of prayer is so sublimely and superlatively useless; it renders itself unfalsifiable by building into itself immunity from disproof. Despite its utter absurdity and intellectual offensiveness, because of the emotional rewards it brings, god-believers tend to want to hang on to their irrational belief, and thus any counter-evidence or counter-arguments can be - and are - waved aside with all manner of excuses and rationalisations of the irrational. Just as you will do the next time you post, if you bother to reply to this (which is exceedingly doubtful).

And all the wonders of mans cleverness in design, thought, research, invention and development could not have happened without the driving force of human self awareness coupled with free will given by the human soul.

Assertion, assertion, assertion.

[Leonard James]

That's why the concept of prayer is so sublimely and superlatively useless; it renders itself unfalsifiable by building into itself immunity from disproof. Despite its utter absurdity and intellectual offensiveness, because of the emotional rewards it brings, god-believers tend to want to hang on to their irrational belief, and thus any counter-evidence or counter-arguments can be - and are - waved aside with all manner of excuses and rationalisations of the irrational.

I think the main reason for refusing to accept the obvious is the subconscious mind.

Without even being consciously aware of it, believers are influenced by their subconscious awareness of all they would lose if they accepted the truth of what you say, Shakes ... and that is something they can't do. It is even more difficult for people like the two Alans, Sass, BA, TW etc., who have spent so much of their lives living with the dream of a "paradisiacal everlasting life with "God".

[SusanDoris]

What is the difficulty in putting your faith in the one who died to save you from sin and death?

But nothing anyone has ever done ever will save any person or any other living thing from death, will it, and wrong-doing is rife in the world, isn't it?  You mention above about prayer; your response shows, as Shaker said, confirmation bias, but I'd call it the stranglehold that your beliefs have on you, preventing you from even considering the possibility that you might be wrong. Some here may consider the word 'stranglehold' a bit too strong or unfair, but I think the huge metaphorical blinkers you wear will not allow  you to hear such ideas as more than the faintest, incomprehensible murmurs they will seem to be.

ETA: I see from subsequent posts that my choice of words was perfectly okay!
One of the other phrases I was going to add was 'the suffocating, cottonwool comfort blanket of a barrier' - that's what you and others with similar beliefs think protects you from death, insists that the aspect of ourselves we label 'soul' has some separate existence, thus being blind to the wealth of factual, scientific, biological knowledge we have the privilege of  accessing these days. As you say in your sig line, Alan, The TRUTH will, indeed, set you free - free from delusion. 

[Leonard James]

As you say in your sig line, Alan, The TRUTH will, indeed, set you free - free from delusion.

Unfortunately Susan, Alan's "truth" is itself a delusion. 

[torridon]

msg 2914 AB "This indicates that god needs human faith to enable his power on earth. . . . ." I cant say it any other way. Its drivel. I always wonder how grown people who can clearly get up in the morning, make a coffee, hold down a job and rely on all the wonders of mans cleverness in design, thought, research, invention and development can sideline their brains and go straight back to the caves!!! Its wierd.

Don't knock it until you have tried it.  Prayer with faith really does work for me, and many others.

OK, lets put it to the test then, ask your God in prayer for my paternal grandfather's christian name; if you can post that up on here, correctly,  then you will have provided a little bit of evidence in favour of prayer; if you fail to do so, then that will be evidence against.

[Leonard James]

msg 2914 AB "This indicates that god needs human faith to enable his power on earth. . . . ." I cant say it any other way. Its drivel. I always wonder how grown people who can clearly get up in the morning, make a coffee, hold down a job and rely on all the wonders of mans cleverness in design, thought, research, invention and development can sideline their brains and go straight back to the caves!!! Its wierd.

Don't knock it until you have tried it.  Prayer with faith really does work for me, and many others.

OK, lets put it to the test then, ask your God in prayer for my paternal grandfather's christian name; if you can post that up on here, correctly,  then you will have provided a little bit of evidence in favour of prayer; if you fail to do so, then that will be evidence against.

I'm afraid he's got that covered, Torri. Somewhere in the Bible it is stated that you are not allowed to test "God".

Clearly the writers had been given the same opportunity by doubters, so they realised it was a hole that had to be sealed.

[Maeght]

Alan these people you are trying to reason with are DEAD you can read about them here.

They are the THEM of this verse.                        9 And they swarmed up over the broad plain of the earth and encircled the fortress (camp) of God’s people (the saints) and the beloved city; but fire descended from heaven and consumed them.

~TW~

He's not reasoning with anyone.

[Nearly Sane]

As you say in your sig line, Alan, The TRUTH will, indeed, set you free - free from delusion.

Unfortunately Susan, Alan's "truth" is itself a delusion. 

Is it? Prove it.

[Nearly Sane]

So Alan Burns god can only do stuff if people really really believe? How does that work then Alan? Don't you see that it is a huge cop out to argue that, never mind the lunacy of having a god as some how belief fuelled?

I would also be interested to knowledge any of the other Christians on here believe (a) if their god is constricted in actions by belief and (b) if they Lepanto to be a miracle, and (c) if they do think Lepanto was a miracle, what their methodology for determining it to be is?

[floo]

Alan these people you are trying to reason with are DEAD you can read about them here.

They are the THEM of this verse.                        9 And they swarmed up over the broad plain of the earth and encircled the fortress (camp) of God’s people (the saints) and the beloved city; but fire descended from heaven and consumed them.

~TW~

 

[Alan Burns]

Just as you will do the next time you post, if you bother to reply to this (which is exceedingly doubtful).

Well I must thank you for taking the trouble to give a very detailed account of the logic behind your views.  I can see where you are coming from, and sympathise with how things must seem from outside our faith.

As I see it, faith is an integral part of our existence.  If God wanted to make His presence obvious it could easily be done, but for whatever reason it will not happen yet.  I do not fully understand why, but it seems to be bound up in the way we use our gift of free will.  If God made Himself obvious, we would not have the opportunity to use our free will to take a step in faith.  He will not impose Himself on us - He wants us to choose to follow Him.  So I believe this is why any attempt to use methodology to prove answers to prayer is doomed to failure.

Saying that, I know from many personal experiences that good things will happen when I pray about them, which would not have happened if I did not pray.  I know there is no way I can convince you that this is not just confirmation bias, but is is my personal perception.  I once lost a hard contact lense on a grassy field, said a prayer, put my finger in the grass, and found the lens to be at the tip of my finger, then said a prayer of thanks.  I know you will write this off as mere coincidence, but it is just one of many which keep happening throughout my life.

[Leonard James]

I know from many personal experiences that good things will happen when I pray about them, which would not have happened if I did not pray.

Alan, mate, you are an intelligent man, so I know you did not write that sentence with much thought behind it.

Read it again now, and tell me how you could possibly know what would happen or not happen if didn't pray about it.

[Leonard James]

As you say in your sig line, Alan, The TRUTH will, indeed, set you free - free from delusion.

Unfortunately Susan, Alan's "truth" is itself a delusion. 

Is it? Prove it.

The usual cheap cop-out, which I would not normally use. But I am making an exception in this case. 

No, you prove it isn't!

[ekim]

Alan

If God made Himself obvious, we would not have the opportunity to use our free will to take a step in faith.  He will not impose Himself on us - He wants us to choose to follow Him.

Where do you get this idea of a 'hide and seek' God from?

I once lost a hard contact lense on a grassy field, said a prayer, put my finger in the grass, and found the lens to be at the tip of my finger

Wouldn't it have been better to pray for perfect vision so that contact lenses wouldn't be necessary?

[Shaker]

As I see it, faith is an integral part of our existence.  If God wanted to make His presence obvious it could easily be done, but for whatever reason it will not happen yet.  I do not fully understand why, but it seems to be bound up in the way we use our gift of free will.

But the statement that we possess free will is an assertion of belief, not a fact.

If God made Himself obvious, we would not have the opportunity to use our free will to take a step in faith.  He will not impose Himself on us - He wants us to choose to follow Him.  So I believe this is why any attempt to use methodology to prove answers to prayer is doomed to failure.

You are confusing believing in/believing that with following, though. One could believe that God exists, yet not follow it. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law here, there were some brave people in Germany and elsewhere who chose to defy Hitler. They didn't disbelieve in his existence; his existence was all too obvious. Rather obnoxiously so, in fact. Yet they opted to go against him and his will. The same goes for any and every tyrannical despot and dictator there has ever been, since there are heroic people everywhere who put a greater good even above their own lives.

So believing in or believing that God exists doesn't compel anyone to follow or obey it. (Indeed, Sartre said that if God did exist it would be every human's duty to disobey and defy it).

Saying that, I know from many personal experiences that good things will happen when I pray about them, which would not have happened if I did not pray.  I know there is no way I can convince you that this is not just confirmation bias,

Correct ...

but is is my personal perception.  I once lost a hard contact lense on a grassy field, said a prayer, put my finger in the grass, and found the lens to be at the tip of my finger, then said a prayer of thanks.  I know you will write this off as mere coincidence, but it is just one of many which keep happening throughout my life.

Do you not find it instructive and in fact downright appalling that your worldview says that God comes through for you personally on utterly insignificant fluff and trivia that would have happened anyway -such as finding a contact lens - yet seems so singularly inept when it comes to preventing, let's say, the Black Death, the wholesale massacre of millions of Jews and others, the Rwandan genocide, 9/11 and so forth? God helps you find your lost contact lens but fails to prevent the World Trade Centre from being turned very suddenly into an extremely tall crematorium.

Does this not give you any kind of pause about your beliefs at all?

[BeRational]

Alan

If God made Himself obvious, we would not have the opportunity to use our free will to take a step in faith.

Does the Devil have free will?

Was God obvious to him?

[Rhiannon]

This idea that God wants us to follow him and so hides from us isn't just bizarre, it's unbiblical - what about the parable of the lost sheep? God should be searching for us. The closest analogy I can think of is dumping a child in the wilderness and then waiting for it to find its way back. Surely any loving parent tears the world apart in trying to find a lost child?

As for the contact lense thing - really? How small some people make their God out to be.

[Leonard James]

Wouldn't it have been better to pray for perfect vision so that contact lenses wouldn't be necessary?

That would have been a perfect answer to the prayer, but "God" obviously doesn't consider Alan worthy of such a miracle. I think he wants Alan to try harder.