I am glad to come across this. I stayed up half the night last night after getting some news about someone I have prayed for and realized that none of my prayers have ever really been answered. I was just fooling myself and part of me knew it all along. It is liberating to simply accept how things are and quit trying to make them some other way.
Bravo. As a post-evangelical Christian I smile widely when good logic so easily dashes evangelical simplicity. Good, solid answers...I'll be looking for more of your vids.
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.
I guess "anything" means different things to different people.
@JesusOurSalvation So we are just supposed to pray to God and ask him things in Jesus' name and if it happens to line up with God's will, he will answer our prayer? To me that kind of makes the idea of prayer seem stupid, I mean if it's God's will and this is his universe wouldn't he do it anyway?
The challenge would be a reenactment of the the 7 yr old girl's situation We'd go 2 a children's hospital cancer ward. The Xians who take the challenge would have 3 days 2 pray 4 a child who is terminal.
I'd document it all, then post the results here on youtube.
To this date, no one has taken the challenge.
Sorry 4 all the posts explaining all of this in such detail, but the way I see it, if
there was a god, he would've answered 1 of our prayers for that beautiful little girl.
I said "god, just stop her suffering & let her die easier." But he wouldn't listen. After all that prayer & heartache, he still couldn't grant that last prayer!
The reason it bothered me was bcuz I couldn't see any reason why he'd deny that one. Ok, he had reason 2 let her die at 7 (I didn't believe that) but I just knew he'd answer the last 1. I thought, there is no reason to let her suffer. I don't think even satan could deny that request (if he existed). But she suffered and suffered...
@Cootabux That is such a shame. Unfortunately we see a lot of confirmation bias in prayer. If it goes well, it is god's doing, if it is doesn't, god has something else in mind. No matter what happens, the answer is "obviously its god's doing". No possibility to disconfirm it. Confirmation bias is what holds many people in religion.
Well, I'm sure you know I'm going to say that it made absolutely no difference. But here's something I wanted to say that at the time, really bothered me. The closer she came to dying, the more she suffered, of course we all prayed so much harder. Now, there was a point where I said, "why... why are u letting her die so young & why in such agony?" This bothered me greatly, but I told myself "god has a reason." So I changed my prayer. I said, ok god, u know best but do 1 thing 4 her...please...
Thanks for making this important video. Prayer was the primary reason that initially pushed me into researching it. This simply involved trying different situations having to do with prayer & observing others.
Let me just say that I didn't see any prayers answered in Vietnam, nor several years after I got home when I had to watch a 7 yr old little girl die from Bone Cancer. I was a member of a small church then. Myself & the whole Congregation prayed feverishly for her for many weeks....
Your interpretation of the Matthew passage is correct, HD. In the Greek, the "shall ___" are all in the indicative mood. They're supposed to be unconditional, certainties.
Let's do an experiment! Have a student who goes to classes and studies for 10 hours a day for four years, and a Christian who prays for success (in the same field as the student) for 10 hours a day for four years. Lets look at their respective situations 1 year and 10 year after the conclusion of the study/prayer, and see who is further along.
@HonestDiscussioner Absolutely but Jesus is the Messiah so I take His word over all others. He answers prayers but you need to be sensitive to the experience. Sometimes what you want isn't what you need or what is best for you; more specifically, its not His plan for you. It humors Him when we ignore Him and stubbornly try to get our way but He loves us and gives us what is best. Sometimes living isn't what is best and He brings us to Him.
@SonistheFatherofMan The reference I mentioned was in the gospel, and apparently his own words. The issue here is that means intercessory prayer does not work, because if he has it in store for you he will give it to you whether you ask it or not. This removes prayer from the equation completely. If someone is sick, you should not pray for them to get better, for it will do no good.
@SonistheFatherofMan you do not have jesus' words, you have the words of ancient and uneducated men, who claim to have talked to a man named jesus. we should not forget the lesson of doubting thomas, jesus showed up for him to touch the wounds. well i think i deserve this much respect myself, why would god or jesus place one man above another?
@HonestDiscussioner Its got nothing to do with this subject. I will PM you one that clarifies some of these apparent inconsistencies. One more thing, people really underestimate the damage of bad translations.
That's hilarious. "god answers every prayer, so if nothing happens to you, that's god's way of saying "no"" the circularity of believers logic is amazing
Well, the old Irish saying that "The Lord moves in mysterious ways" seems to speak to that. The implication is that god does answer prayers, but not in a way that is readily apparent to the beseecher. While in the end I don't agree with this, it is an interesting and Pangloss-like view of the world.
@Anekantavad I think my point of view here to answer that objection is that this is EXACTLY what we would expect to see if there was no god. If there is no way to tell when or if god is working, then why is there any reason to believe that he is?
HD you seem to have missed the point in saying that you don't expect that God should be a wish machine. You go on to say that we should be able to "expect" for prayers for healing to be answered every time. What's the difference it's still a character vs comfort issue. Sure God heals and miracles do happen, but these are not things I would expect to be tested.
@Graffight Is it not still using God as a wish machine to expect the same results every time you ask for something. This is the problem many christians have with the word of faith movement and those preachers who get on TV to "heal" people. It doesn't seem that this is the way that this verse in Matthew is intended to be understood. We first have to make sure that our prayers line up with God's will by reading and studying the bible, then we will ask for things that we supposed to ask for.
@Graffight So, if our prayers are lined up with gods will, and we ask for what we're SUPPOSED to ask for...doens't that mean gods gonna do what gods gonna do?
So if gods only going to fulfill the requests he intends to do in the first place..why bother praying at all?
"Isn't it using God as a wish machine to expect the same results every time you ask? " I didn't say EVERY time, but that they should be answered SOMETIMES.
What if a doctor had a magic cure for anything. If you ask the doctor nicely, he will sometimes give people this magic cure when he otherwise would not have. You ask him to give it to 50 out of a 100 people who have the same illness. If this scenario were true, a higher percentage of the 50 you asked would get better than the 50 you didn't
@Graffight "It doesn't seem that this is the way that this verse in Matthew is intended to be understood. "
I'll grant you that. I'm not saying faith healers must exist, but you have two options: either prayer has an effect on god's actions or it doesn't. This study seems to show it has no effect on god's actions.
To a Christian, prayer is not a mere event, but part of an intimate relationship with a Person. So the effect of a prayer request is believed to be caused by an Agent, with his own will and interests. As you know, an agent can withhold from answering a request possibly without making known his reasons. If God is an agent, we can expect this to happen.
@Bucklehairy ". If God is an agent, we can expect this to happen."
But an agent also acts at some point, and when that agent acts, we should expect to see the effects of his action. You cannot have an action that has literally no effect. So if god answers prayers even 10% of the time and interceeds on behalf of the one that prays, that would be an extra 120 people that would benefit from this, and that should be shown in the statistics to some degree.
Is this a genuine argument against God's existence? A scientific test of the effect of prayer would only be adequate,
1) if there existed a necessary cause and effect relationship between God and a prayer request, such that prayer requests would repeatably and consistently show similar effects;
2) if we knew all the possible causes, both material and immaterial, involved.
Neither are the case, so a scientific test of prayer is inadequate.
1) How can both the material and the immaterial be involved? In perticular of what value is the immaterial? Doesn't involvement imply material manifestation?
2)Since when do we have to know EVERYTHING to know if ANYTHING works?
How would you eliminate "wishful thining" or placebo as a cause/effect from prayer?
1) No, not necessarily, for, to a Christian, prayer also plays a role in the spiritual realm, so that there may be spiritual causes involved in unanswered prayer, such as sin or spiritual warfare.
2) I'm not saying that, but if a scientist presupposes that only natural causes should be taken into account, s/he cannot claim to know fully how prayer works, because other causes that may be involved are being excluded.
If by "ghosts", you mean spirits or angelic beings, then that's fine by me.
Our perception of the world is also shaped by reality and no, not all facts require scientific proof. Moreover, it seems to me that the question: "do we know immaterial beings do not exist?" can only be answered in a theistic ("No, immaterial beings do exist") or agnostic way ("No, we don't know").
@Bucklehairy the same can be said for electromagnatism. how can we PROVE that god isn't making electricity work? the same can be said about anything at all. the difference is that we can measure statistic probability and use it as a guideline. this is how we come up with cool inventions like computer semi-conductors. so far anything to do with the supernatural is unproven and by default impossible (if a god did exist, it would be a natural creature).
"by default impossible (if a god did exist, it would be a natural creature)"
This is quite a presumptuous assertion to make. How do you know that there is nothing beyond nature? Suppose nature exists and the existence of the supernatural has not been proven, how does it logically follow that nature is all there is? It only follows that you simply don't know whether the supernatural exists.
@Bucklehairy the definition of natural is to occur through rules that govern existance. if a god does exist than it fits within this structure. to say supernatural is to say that it does not occur through rules that govern existance, which is another way of saying fictional.
"How would you eliminate "wishful thining" or placebo as a cause/effect from prayer? "
If an answered prayer is illusory, this presupposes that you know what really happened, apart from what you requested it to be. So "wishful thinking" implies "God had nothing to do with it." How would you know? Prayer is not mechanical. There are no "cheat codes" or "tricks" to have it your way all the time. If we pray to God, we pray "Thy will be done".
@Bucklehairy Nobody gets what they want all the time, even if god dens't exist. So, how do you know god had anything to do with it in the first place? You might as well ask a Magic 8-ball.
And even if god did answer prayers, what was the point of asking or makinf the prayer, if his will was done as he intended to... in the first place?
Either there's a divine plan...in which case praying is a waste of time...
...or you're all making things up as you go along.
Well, theologically, there is no problem in assuming that God in his foreknowledge would have designed the natural course of events in such a way that it neatly fits with an answer to your prayer or that God lowered himself to the temporal level at the point of creation. Anyhow, a Christian can gather all its resources from within his/her worldview to make sense of the relationship between God's foreknowledge and God's answering of prayers.
@Bucklehairy REALISTICALLY speaking, you would still have to ASSUME either the outcome is rigged in advance like a stack of dominoes, or the outcome is arbitrary as god interfears with the flow of events to suit his purpose alone.
This makes playing the game pointless and meaningless, since dues ex machina ruins the need for character development in the plot.
You're assuming that human beings are merely pieces of dominoes in a chain of cause and effect initiated by God. Per contrast, I believe human beings are causal agents themselves, pushing a line of dominoes, and therefore responsible for their own actions.
@Bucklehairy What causes them to push that line of dominoes? The problem with your philosophy is that you have agents as being an uncaused cause, and that simply isn't the case. What we do, we do because we are caused to do it, and that can be shown via psychology.
Can you really state that experiences have not shaped your actions?
"What we do, we do because we are caused to do it"
I disagree. I believe what we do, we do for specific reasons, but reasons by themselves don't have any effect, unless the person freely chooses to act for that reason.
"Can you really state that experiences have not shaped your actions?"
No, but "shaped" merely calls to mind an influential relationship, not a causal relationship.
@Bucklehairy "Theologically speaking" any ridiculous myth is possible because time and space(aka REALITY AS WE KNOW IT) are non-factors.
If god's foreknowledge was something to brag about creating satan was a big mistake which only led to necessitate pre-meditated murder on gods part. As was starting with Adam, and not Noah.
Oh wait, it's all "Part of the plan". Horrible plan. Start a fire, to put it out.
No, you're assuming foreknowledge = foreordainment, which is not necessarily true. God may foreknow your choices and requests, but does not necessarily foreordain them. Also, foreknowledge is from a human point of view bound by time, suggesting that God's knowledge is prior to your choice, but from God's point of view, it would simply be knowledge, since He is timeless and views your life in the unbounded now.
@Bucklehairy Wait so if I make an illusionary wish and it somehow comes true, that presumes I know how it really happened? No it doens't.
I made a wish at the wishing well. My wish happens to have come true. What does that prove? Absolutly nothing. If it doens't come true what does that prove? Absolutly nothing.
You're not accounting for wishful-thinking, and happenstance, which are both FAR MORE LIKLEY than a wish-fulfilling deity.
In case of an answered Hindu prayer request how do you know Vishni, Shiva, Ganesh, or Burahma had nothing to do with it at all?
In case the lucky numbers on my fortine cookie WERE right, how do you know the fortune cookie has nothing to do with it at all? What about wishing wells? What about Lucky Charms?
That doens't explain anything at all. you're asking th wrong question.
I'm not explaining anything. I'm merely suggesting that wishful thinking or sheer coincidence are not necessarily true for an answered prayer request, if God exists. If God exists, it may very well be that your prayer request was answered.
@Bucklehairy No you most certainly anr't explaning anything.
Prayers requests are indistinguishable from wishful thinking.
An existing god would be sheer coinsidense.
You might as well claim that if Wishing Wells grant wishes, then it very well be that out wishes were answered by the Wishing Well. It's mythological nonsense.
"Prayers requests are indistinguishable from wishful thinking."
Yet this is only true, if naturalism is true. From a naturalistic point of view, even the question "Why doesn't God answer prayers?" has no validity at all.
In other words, the atheist would have to show that there is an incompatibility between the existence of God and unanswered prayers.
@Bucklehairy That's unreasonable. The burden of proof is on the theists to prove they're not TALKING TO THEMSELVES, genius. Science demonstrated that naturalism is EVIDENT. Meanwhile, supernaturalism is NOT remotly evident.
Do I need to prove the incompatability of Wishing Wells, Four Leaf Clovers, Lucky Rabbits feet, or Magic 8-Balls? Of course not. From a naturalistic point of view, prayer is totally valid to question as any "placebo affect" brought about through wishful thinking.
Do you have ANY factual evidence for gods existance? Or for ANYTHING supernatural whatsoever?? How do you scientifically TEST for supernatural involement? Are you kidding?
I believe God's existence is evident from nature, our moral consciousness, Jesus resurrection from the dead and religious experience and is personally and existentially satisfying. You don't scientifically test for the supernatural, you scientifically infer the supernatural.
@Bucklehairy Nature is evidence of the supernatural? Then you don't understand what EVIDENCE is. Evidence is quantifiable. The supernatural is not.
From whence comes the supernatural? Can you infer the super-dupernatural from the supernatural? You have evidence the living dead or pregnant virgins? Doyou have evidence of a SINGLE supernatural FACT? No...that makes no sense.
I'm afraid you need to practice some more philosophy. "Evidence is quantifiable." Really, is all evidence quantifiable? What quantifiable evidence do you have for that assumption? I hope you do know that empirical positivism is unable to satisfy its own truth claim. If we cannot directly empirically prove X, does this mean that X does not exist? What direct empirical evidence do we have for the existence of my mind beside your own? (I hope this question does not frighten you.)
@Bucklehairy I'm afraid you need to practice some more MYTHOLOGY. Or do you?
Yes, evidence is quantifiable, that's what evidence is and how facts are tentitivly constituted. Les you gie creedence to mindless speculation. Naturalistic methodology, for example, is the phylosophy that evidently made your computer.
Naturally, science produces factually evidenced RESULTS. Supernatural Myscticism does not. dont' pretend theolgoy is philosophy.
@Bucklehairy If the word "exist" has any meaning whatsoever, then science must account for what exists or else it serves no purpose. Science is knowledge. If it exists, it must be known to exist before it can be accounted for.
Has anything supernatural EVER been accounted for? Of course not.
@Bucklehairy Yes infact I did answer your question, perhaps you need to dust off your reading comprehention skills.
Science is knowledge.
If the word "exist" has any meaning whatsoever, then science MUST account for what exists or else it serves no purpose. If it EXISTS, it must be KNOWN to exist before it can be accounted for. So yes.
"So yes." So you do believe science can account for everything. Well, I disagree. Science cannot account for the truths it presupposes, such as logic, math, uniformity of nature, law of causality, analogy of language, reliability of the senses etc. nor for aesthetic and ethical judgement or metaphysical truths,eg existence of my thoughts beside yours, the past etc.Last but not least, science cannot account for itself: scientific-philosophical truths cannot be proven scientifically.
I just told you what it can't know and will never know. Nature, history etc. may be subject to science, and perhaps, we might know almost everything about it someday, but science will always remain subject to philosophy/reasonable faith. Reasonable faith/philosophy makes science possible. Period. Reasonable faith is all that is required to show the truth of God's existence. Period.
@Bucklehairy Yes I heard what you told me but you are wrong. Once more, it if it EXISTS in NATURE (which science studies), then it is subject to the purview of SCIENCE. Science is KNOWLEDGE. So, if it EXISTS in NATURE it CAN be KNOWN. Period.
FAITH has nothing whatsoever to do with science, because faith and reason are antithetical concepts. Science is EVIDENCE AND RESULTS BASED. Faith is based solely on WISHFUL THINKING and GULLIBILITY. Period.
"Science is KNOWLEDGE. So, if it EXISTS in NATURE it CAN be KNOWN."
Science is knowledge obtained through scientific method. But I argued that are things we know that are not obtained through the scientific method. And there you agree, for you claim that NATURE can be known through the scientific method. Thus according to you the SUPERNATURAL cannot even be known through this method, hence the question: why believe naturalism is true, if you don't have a method to assess otherwise?!
Science is the body of all of human knowledge. There is no such thing as a FACT which isn't scientific. No such thing exists. Nature is all we know anything about, and everything we know anything about. Naturalism is true because it is EVIDENT.
The supernatural cannot be known by ANY MEANS. It is NOT evident, it is UNKNOWN and remains indistinguishable from baseless mythology.The fact remains you have not a single solitary supernatural fact.
"There is no such thing as a FACT which isn't scientific."
That's funny, I just mentioned a few facts that aren't scientific. Hence, there are most definitely things we accept as true without a scientific basis.
If you assume that "the supernatural cannot be known by any means", then naturalism is not evident: you're simply left in the dark, you simply can't ever know whether naturalism is true. However, more interestingly, how CAN you KNOW that the supernatural CAN't be KNOWN?
@Bucklehairy What's funny, is that you named some things you either don't understand or that are as of yet unexplained by science, which makes them UNKNOWN at best. nmot supenatural.
What's funny is that I don't need to assume, the supernatural can't be known. You STILL havn't a single solitary supernatural fact.
The supernatural CAN be known at ALL? How? Explain? List a single supernatural fact. You won't, because you can't. That's how myths work.
"you either don't understand or that are as of yet unexplained by science"
Oh, but I do understand them properly. Yet your fancy idea that science can explain itself is preposterous. Moreover, the idea that it is unknown, e.g. that child abuse is wrong, is absurd. Science may be able to explain how moral beliefs arise, but it can (by definition) not show that these beliefs are true.
@Bucklehairy So your argument here is that dispite science knowing that morals reguarding child abuse exist in NATURE, and arise by NATURAL means, they they are verified as true... supernaturally and not by their RESULTS in societies which exist in nature?
Again how do you understand this properly?
Have you a single solitary supernatural fact? No, once again, of course you don't because the supernatural is baseless assumption fuled by overactive imaginations.
Once again, even if I granted that moral beliefs originate in evolution and society, as science might show, this says nothing about the truth of these beliefs. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist, then there are no moral truths, no moral facts, then a moral judgment "child abuse is wrong" would be indistinct from an entirely subjective judgment like "that Emo hairstyle of yours is so out!".
@Bucklehairy So, even though moral beliefs about harming children exist naturally and are applied in nature where their results are evident...there's somehow no discernible method for ascertaing the objective validity of the harmful nature of those beliefs without nessecitating a being who itself isn't narutal... or objectivly verdiable??? Is that what you're saying? If so I not only disagree but STILL request the evidence for any supernatural facts.
@Bucklehairy Have you been rendered so incapable of critical thought, that you cannot see the objecitonable moral difference between a visually offensive haircut, and the harming of children? Where's the harm in a haircut: Nowhere.
Is the premeditated act of drowning every living thing that breathed(men women and children) to spare the family of an obedient slave named Noah, who you know will later sleep with his daughters to repopulate the earth...the most moral or ethical means by which to deal with the situation? What about slaughtering the first born of egypt to release ungreatful slaves? This is your high objective standard of morality and love? Really?
FAITH has nothing whatsoever to do with science, because faith and reason are antithetical concepts."
I would argue that they enhance each other. We have good REASONS to BELIEVE, e.g., that the senses are reliable, therefore we accept it as true. We have good REASONS to BELIEVE that God exists, therefore we accept it s true.
How do you asses the factuality of the fact that there are no facts beside natural facts?
@Bucklehairy As to your "scary" question... surely you are joking.
Is there such a thing as a "mind" without a "brain"? No, of course not. No such thing is evidenced. Done.
So either you're a hallucination and talking to myself, you're a less-than clever computer simulation, or you have a brain... attatched to a body... using a computer. Gee, which is more probable I wonder?? DUH.
Have you ever measured or weighed a thought? IS a mental state quantifiable? So what quantifiable evidence do you have that my personal thoughts and subjective experiences in my mind exist beside your own? Science cannot account for such metaphysical truths.
@Bucklehairy However, and I can't believe I am engaging in such high school philosophy, not being able ot OBSERVE X means the X is merely speculation, and inference from Y can only be assumend if there is no other possiblity other than X MUST = Y. However, Y has never been explicable by ONLY X and even where Y is unexplained, X still =/= Y. X is an logical fallacy to fill the gaps in knowledge every time, 100% of the time.
Have you ever observed the law of excluded middle or the law of non-contradiction or Alexander the Great in the flesh? And yet it is perfectly rational to accept them as true.
@Bucklehairy Nonsense, our moral consciousness is a natural product of our survival instinct as tribal social animals. We care about the other primates in our tribe because it benefits us all to look after one another. It's that simple.
There is no scentifically factual evidence for a ressurection or any supernatural phenomenon. All you're doing is proving your capacity for baseless wishful thinking extrapolated from bronze age mythology.
If our moral beliefs are the result of evolution, this says nothing about the truth of these beliefs. If God does not exist, then, indeed, objective moral values do not exist and morality simply is arbitrary and subjective like your preference for chocolate ice cream or a peculiar hairstyle.
@Bucklehairy No, it doesn't becuse just because you BELIEVE SOMETHING doens't make it FACT. It is EVIDENCED by the fact we are the decendants of cavemen, who's instincts to not slaughter one another worked long before deities and their arbitrary loyalty oaths were invented by their decendants.
Even if god does exist, what sort of TWISTED example is that of moral objectivity? Who created SATAN or DEATH as a means to TEST for OBEDIENCE?That would be an act of UNTOLD EVIL, if it were true.
"No, it doesn't becuse just because you BELIEVE SOMETHING doens't make it FACT." That's what I said: If we have moral beliefs because of evolution, this says NOTHING about the truth of these beliefs. So evolution is irrelevant. Same applies to instincts. I may grant that we have moral instincts, but still what urges you to choose one instinct over the other? It can't be an instinct itself, and therefore morality is trans/metha-instinctive.
If God does not exist, then you're right, there is no objective right and wrong, everything is permitted, then any moral judgment of someone's behaviour would be as meaningless as your opinion of, for ex., their hair style, as C.S. Lewis wrote: "If [Nazis] had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair."
(cont'd) Moreover, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to life. Let's just all do what ever we want, be merry and enjoy life, for tomorrow we cease to be.
@Bucklehairy However, we DO have a collective morallity. An agreed resonant morality evolved from our history as a gregorious tribe animal. Society "resonates together " as Durkheim would put it. Without that resonance, we would crumble. Not having objective morallity does not mean anything is permisable. Evolution and society see to that.
So if the Nazis had successfully conquered the whole of human society, it would be morally right to torture and kill Jews, negroes, handicapped etc.? If atheism is true, this would be the case. But that is absurd! Moreover, if atheism is true, then there is no reason to assume that human beings are special. If we continue to find stealing, rape and killing in the animal kingdom, what grounds do you have to condemn them and why favour the human species over them?
@Bucklehairy No, thats not the case. It would, and indeed was, morally right from the point of view of the Nazis, to do what they did. But not from the point of view of the rest of society. There is a certain way humanity must behave, genetically and morally, and this is why the same morals exist in 90% of religions and philosphies.
Ok, so say, Nazis conquered the world, what if Goebbels brainwashed all of society into Nazi thinking? Would it then become morally right to kill and torture, to systematically exterminate, innocent Jews? No, of course not. Why? Because it is immoral to do so in whatever society at whatever point of time: it is a moral truth that is true independent of what human beings believe. Therefore, God exists. For if God does not exist, such moral truths do not exist.
@Bucklehairy Actually no, it would be seen as morally right by most of society; I can site historical moments which such a society existed suc as the Roman empire and the Greek empire- the inquisition too. However, certain morals are genetically inherent in us, as they are in all gregarious animals, so anything that goes too far and breaks the biological whip is simply not allowed, gentically. I has nothing to do with God, otherwise god would not change his mind so often as to what morals are.
Really? So someone who behaves immoral simply has bad genes? That's quite a knock-out of human responsibility! I'm sorry, judge, I can't help it, I have bad genes, I was genetically compelled to kill that ****, who took away my girlfriend!
@Bucklehairy No, not bad genes, but some socio-phsychological porblem that allows them to ignore the biological whip. It is, in the case of basic morality, inherent in all gregarious animals. M0rality is just a word we put on gentitc and social behvaiour we are compelled to follow and have socially agreed upon. Religious text are an example of that social agreement. God is not nescessary.
"Actually no, it would be seen as morally right by most of society"
But that is the whole point. If atheism is true, indeed, there would be nothing immoral to such a society to do so, for human opinion = moral truth. But I don't think so, and I hope you can agree, (unless you're morally handicapped) that genocide is morally wrong, whatever the whole of society may come to belief!
Sure, I'd appreciate that. I'm always open to a sportive discussion and interested in hearing/reading your thoughts. You can also send me a PM, if you like. If my correspondent debates sportively and sincerely, I find it most valuable.
I don't believe people need God to recognize what is moral or immoral, but that they need God to justify their beliefs. You're assuming human morality is natural Yet morality is not about the natural behavioral interests of human beings. The natural experience of empathy or affection makes both moral and immoral behaviour possible. Rather, the question that is of moral significance is: how is a human being naturally SUPPOSED to behave? And that, mrgod, can only be grounded in God.
@Bucklehairy Not so, and that can be shown simply by pointing to non-theistic idealogies which have strong moral cores- Buddhism, Stoicism, etc. All you need is a moral core and that moral core MUST come from our nature. Otherwisem the atheistic Dhamapada and the theistic Sermon on the mount, for example, would not be so similar.
Indeed, let's mention Jesus sermon on the mount. Do you believe it is natural for us to love our enemies, pray for those who prosecute us? I believe the entirety of history shows that this is false. It may even be naturally infeasible for human beings to do so. But can we all recognize that love for one's enemies is a profound moral good? Yes. See also my video:
Indeed, let's mention Jesus sermon on the mount. Do you believe it is natural for us to love our enemies, pray for those who prosecute us? I believe the entirety of history shows that this is false. It may even be naturally infeasible for human beings to do so. But can we all recognize that love for one's enemies is a profound moral good? Yes. See also my video:
@Bucklehairy "If God does not exist, then, indeed, objective moral values do not exist "
I agree. They also don't exist if god exists though. If you believe god is good and only does what is good, then good exists separate from God. If you believe Divine Command Theory and that whatever god says is good, therefore is, then this itself is just arbitrary and god can make anything good or evil, which makes it subjective as well.
But whoever said that I, as a theist, have to believe the Divine Command Theory is an adequate ethical theory? I don't. Per contrast, I believe Biblical Virtue Ethics is adequate.
@Bucklehairy Re-read the comment. You either believe in Divine Command Theory, which is by nature subjective, or you believe that good is separate from god . . .if you choose the latter that implies god is not necessary to be good, which sort of flies in the fact of a large chunk of the new testament.
But do you not see the absurdity in what you are saying: "good is separate from god". I don't believe such a thing as "goodness" can ever exist outside of a person. Moral values have to reside in a person. The good is an essential property of God's character, his nature, so to speak. He is the epitome: as he revealed himself in Christ, God himself IS the standard of how a human being is supposed to be in order to live the excellent life in supreme happiness with him.
@Bucklehairy the statistics however show that not praying is just as effective as praying (and in some cases more effective). this shows that either: A) god does not answer prayers that are being subjected to tests, or B) god does not answer prayers. this is all based on the ASSUMPTION that a god does indeed exist, which there has yet to be found ANY evidence to support the god hypothesis.
@Bucklehairy Because it says in the bible that he who asks shall receive, and that shows the people that are asking aren't getting anything. Since god can't lie, the bible can't be inspired by god, which makes the religion baseless.
If you say your god is acting in this world, and yet his actions have no noticeable effects, it is much more reasonable to state he isn't acting at all.
Of course, he who asks for the Holy Spirit, shall receive him, but are you suggesting that not a single Christian has ever experienced an unanswered request? Are they all conspiring against the undeniable truth? I don't think so. Every Christian acknowledges that God doesn't answer all prayers, but surrendering to his will, by which he works everything for the good and will make all things right, they trust that God will supply every need in Christ Jesus.
It is as Jesus said: "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" (Mt 7:9-12)
@Bucklehairy If that line from Matthew is the case, why did prayer not seem to help the 600 people that were prayed over? That was my entire point! If Matthew is right, then indeed we should expect the 600 who were prayed over to not suffer as many complications as the ones that are not. This refutes your theory that prayer does anything!
@HonestDiscussioner In Matthew 4, 6-7 Devil asks Jesus Christ to make a miracle in order to prove his deity and the answer he got was that the Bible says that we should not test God. Aside from the fact that the praying groups might be suffering the heresy problem it can be still be explained by Biblical standards. For any Christian Follower, at least in the Eastern Orthodox Church this act is ungodly even if they aren't aware of the aforementioned statement.
@Bucklehairy I never said Christians think he answers all prayers. My point is that no matter what happens, there is nothing that could happen that would show that god wasn't answering them. If things don't go as planned, it just wasn't your time, but if they DO go the way you want, it's only because god made it happen for you.
Try to answer this sentence if you can: "We know Jesus Christ exists, and that he answers our prayers, because if he didn't we would expect _____ to happen".
The point is indeed that unanswered prayer does not falsify God's existence. The Christian believes God doesn't answer all request, but God hears them all and, if we surrender to his will, he will make all things right. There is a distinction between answering and hearing.
If God had not raised Jesus from the dead, there would have been no Christianity in the first place. So, yes, God has acted in this world and we can expect him to act in this world again.
@Bucklehairy you are correct. however there is no statement that can be made that necessarily follows that ANYTHING does not exist. this is why we do not attempt to disprove things, but rather fall on to the nil assumption that nothing exists and nothing happens. when we find that stuff does exist or does happen than we consider it to be true. until then, nothing exists and nothing happens.
Are you kidding? Scientists attempt to disprove things all the time, and, yes, we can disprove the existence of things. If your baby brother is frightened by the monster hiding in the closet, you can show him there is no monster there to fear.
@Bucklehairy no science works on the assumption that nothing happens and nothing exists until shown to be otherwise, this is called a nil assumption and it is the only valid one we can make. we cannot prove there is no monster to fear, we can only prove it is not there when we opened the door or more accurately that we did not see it when we opened the door. it is still possible that there is a monster, and we simply did not see it.
Well, I can name lots of things. Science has disproved that the earth is flat, that the earth is eternal, that the universe resolves around the earth etc. We can reject hypotheses based on various reasons, one of which is that it has been disproved. Indeed, if a scientific theory could not be falsified, we should be skeptical about it.
@Bucklehairy science has shown that the earth is near spherical in shape, but has not DISPROVED that it is flat. there is still a very very small chance that we are wrong and the world is indeed flat. what would have to happen for this to occur is that all known observances of the spherical world would have to be incorrect. the odds of this being the case are staggeringly low, the same kind of odds that a god that interacts with humans exists.
Do you not see what you are saying? Say, science doesn't disprove anything (as you claim), then neither does it prove anything. If science cannot prove that a flat earth doesn't exist, it cannot prove that a round earth exists. Of course, a flat earth and a round earth cannot coexist, either of the two has to be false. In light of the evidence it is beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is round. Or do you think you cannot know anything for certain?
@Bucklehairy i think you cannot know anything for certain. we simply agree that things are the way they are based upon prior observance and pattern recognition. the theory of gravity would be thrown out the door the second things started getting repulsed by gravity.
@Bucklehairy theory is an explanation based upon a bell curve of results of observances, measurements and tests. we can be extreemly confident that something is true, but we can never say anything is not true. there is always a small chance that something is true or untrue despite what we have observed and recorded. the math used is probability statistics and the probability of something being or not being the case is never 100% and never 0%.
"we can be extreemly confident that something is true, but we can never say anything is not true."
If you say something is true, then you're also saying something else is false. In other terms, if you cannot know something is false, then you cannot know something is true. Hence, is, according to you, the truth unknowable?
I am glad to come across this. I stayed up half the night last night after getting some news about someone I have prayed for and realized that none of my prayers have ever really been answered. I was just fooling myself and part of me knew it all along. It is liberating to simply accept how things are and quit trying to make them some other way.
mingo09able 9 months ago
@mingo09able I'm glad I can help. Let me know if you need anything else . . within reason ;-).
HonestDiscussioner 9 months ago
Bravo. As a post-evangelical Christian I smile widely when good logic so easily dashes evangelical simplicity. Good, solid answers...I'll be looking for more of your vids.
bharfarar 1 year ago
while i disagree with your conclusions, i really respect your arguments. keep searching for the truth bro.
KeepBelievingMin 1 year ago
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.
I guess "anything" means different things to different people.
reilender1 1 year ago
@reilender1 This means according to God's will.
God knows what is best for us always.
God is all wise.
JesusOurSalvation 1 year ago
@JesusOurSalvation So we are just supposed to pray to God and ask him things in Jesus' name and if it happens to line up with God's will, he will answer our prayer? To me that kind of makes the idea of prayer seem stupid, I mean if it's God's will and this is his universe wouldn't he do it anyway?
reilender1 1 year ago
@reilender1 God does not need us to pray in order to work, God wants us to pray as it helps teach us to trust in hIm.
JesusOurSalvation 1 year ago
#5 (Last post)
The challenge would be a reenactment of the the 7 yr old girl's situation We'd go 2 a children's hospital cancer ward. The Xians who take the challenge would have 3 days 2 pray 4 a child who is terminal.
I'd document it all, then post the results here on youtube.
To this date, no one has taken the challenge.
Sorry 4 all the posts explaining all of this in such detail, but the way I see it, if
there was a god, he would've answered 1 of our prayers for that beautiful little girl.
Cootabux 1 year ago
#4
I won't tell you how she died. That would disrespect her dignity. I'll only say that it traumatized me & the others who stayed with her.
I had seen a lot of death before that, more than my share, but none of those deaths affected me like hers did.
God didn't answer our intercessory prayers bcuz he wasn't there to answer them!! There's no other explanation, although I've heard some zingers!
The whole prayer subject has affected me to the point of making a prayer challenge here on youtube...
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux Well stay tuned. I'm going to be inviting this gentleman for a live conversation.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
#3
I said "god, just stop her suffering & let her die easier." But he wouldn't listen. After all that prayer & heartache, he still couldn't grant that last prayer!
The reason it bothered me was bcuz I couldn't see any reason why he'd deny that one. Ok, he had reason 2 let her die at 7 (I didn't believe that) but I just knew he'd answer the last 1. I thought, there is no reason to let her suffer. I don't think even satan could deny that request (if he existed). But she suffered and suffered...
Cootabux 1 year ago
@Cootabux That is such a shame. Unfortunately we see a lot of confirmation bias in prayer. If it goes well, it is god's doing, if it is doesn't, god has something else in mind. No matter what happens, the answer is "obviously its god's doing". No possibility to disconfirm it. Confirmation bias is what holds many people in religion.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner Jesus is in control over everything.
We do not understand everything but God does.
God asks us to trust Him even when we do not understand.
JesusOurSalvation 1 year ago
Well, I'm sure you know I'm going to say that it made absolutely no difference. But here's something I wanted to say that at the time, really bothered me. The closer she came to dying, the more she suffered, of course we all prayed so much harder. Now, there was a point where I said, "why... why are u letting her die so young & why in such agony?" This bothered me greatly, but I told myself "god has a reason." So I changed my prayer. I said, ok god, u know best but do 1 thing 4 her...please...
Cootabux 1 year ago
#1
Thanks for making this important video. Prayer was the primary reason that initially pushed me into researching it. This simply involved trying different situations having to do with prayer & observing others.
Let me just say that I didn't see any prayers answered in Vietnam, nor several years after I got home when I had to watch a 7 yr old little girl die from Bone Cancer. I was a member of a small church then. Myself & the whole Congregation prayed feverishly for her for many weeks....
Cootabux 1 year ago
Your interpretation of the Matthew passage is correct, HD. In the Greek, the "shall ___" are all in the indicative mood. They're supposed to be unconditional, certainties.
chrisnu 1 year ago
@chrisnu Good to know. I'm half Greek and yet I do not speak it. A shame.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@TLSlayer1 Not as a law, but there certainly is a correlation between a positive attitude and getting things.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
I really liked how you delivered your points in a respectful and controlled manner. That and the fact that I agree with you.
TheDudefromSomewhere 1 year ago
@TheDudefromSomewhere haha, glad to hear it!
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner Yup. I'm easily swayed. ^^
TheDudefromSomewhere 1 year ago
I prayed for wisdom, now I'm an atheist, it worked.
traog 1 year ago
Let's do an experiment! Have a student who goes to classes and studies for 10 hours a day for four years, and a Christian who prays for success (in the same field as the student) for 10 hours a day for four years. Lets look at their respective situations 1 year and 10 year after the conclusion of the study/prayer, and see who is further along.
blurglide 1 year ago
Jesus said not to ask G-d for anything when praying because he already knows what you need.
SonistheFatherofMan 1 year ago
@SonistheFatherofMan Isn't that a contradiction with what he said in Matthew then?
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner Absolutely but Jesus is the Messiah so I take His word over all others. He answers prayers but you need to be sensitive to the experience. Sometimes what you want isn't what you need or what is best for you; more specifically, its not His plan for you. It humors Him when we ignore Him and stubbornly try to get our way but He loves us and gives us what is best. Sometimes living isn't what is best and He brings us to Him.
SonistheFatherofMan 1 year ago
@SonistheFatherofMan The reference I mentioned was in the gospel, and apparently his own words. The issue here is that means intercessory prayer does not work, because if he has it in store for you he will give it to you whether you ask it or not. This removes prayer from the equation completely. If someone is sick, you should not pray for them to get better, for it will do no good.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner You got me then. You can still pray for others but G-d's will will be done.
SonistheFatherofMan 1 year ago
@SonistheFatherofMan you do not have jesus' words, you have the words of ancient and uneducated men, who claim to have talked to a man named jesus. we should not forget the lesson of doubting thomas, jesus showed up for him to touch the wounds. well i think i deserve this much respect myself, why would god or jesus place one man above another?
greycloud24 1 year ago
@SonistheFatherofMan Oh that's right, I still need to watch that video of yours.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner Its got nothing to do with this subject. I will PM you one that clarifies some of these apparent inconsistencies. One more thing, people really underestimate the damage of bad translations.
SonistheFatherofMan 1 year ago
@TeesByTruthSurge Atheist DOES make for a delicious breakfast though.
;-)
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
paganism to judiasm to chritianity to islam
proof of evolution BAHAHAHAHA
HolyAdonis 1 year ago
That's hilarious. "god answers every prayer, so if nothing happens to you, that's god's way of saying "no"" the circularity of believers logic is amazing
BillKiernan 1 year ago
very good video, excellent arguments! And also i am glad to hear that you are keeping busy...i was getting worried! :)
PinkFloydDroid88 1 year ago
@PinkFloydDroid88 Yeah sorry. I'll be around more after next week.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
Yes, no or wait. Seems that praying to god is like shaking up a Magic 8 Ball.
TheOtherSide100 1 year ago
@TheOtherSide100 I wouldn't be surprised if whoever thought that up was inspired by the magic 8 ball.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
Well, the old Irish saying that "The Lord moves in mysterious ways" seems to speak to that. The implication is that god does answer prayers, but not in a way that is readily apparent to the beseecher. While in the end I don't agree with this, it is an interesting and Pangloss-like view of the world.
Anekantavad 1 year ago
@Anekantavad I think my point of view here to answer that objection is that this is EXACTLY what we would expect to see if there was no god. If there is no way to tell when or if god is working, then why is there any reason to believe that he is?
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
Great video.
agnosticman77 1 year ago
Thanks Agman. Always good to hear from you my friend.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
HD you seem to have missed the point in saying that you don't expect that God should be a wish machine. You go on to say that we should be able to "expect" for prayers for healing to be answered every time. What's the difference it's still a character vs comfort issue. Sure God heals and miracles do happen, but these are not things I would expect to be tested.
Graffight 1 year ago
@Graffight Is it not still using God as a wish machine to expect the same results every time you ask for something. This is the problem many christians have with the word of faith movement and those preachers who get on TV to "heal" people. It doesn't seem that this is the way that this verse in Matthew is intended to be understood. We first have to make sure that our prayers line up with God's will by reading and studying the bible, then we will ask for things that we supposed to ask for.
Graffight 1 year ago
@Graffight So, if our prayers are lined up with gods will, and we ask for what we're SUPPOSED to ask for...doens't that mean gods gonna do what gods gonna do?
So if gods only going to fulfill the requests he intends to do in the first place..why bother praying at all?
EntinludeX 1 year ago
"Isn't it using God as a wish machine to expect the same results every time you ask? " I didn't say EVERY time, but that they should be answered SOMETIMES.
What if a doctor had a magic cure for anything. If you ask the doctor nicely, he will sometimes give people this magic cure when he otherwise would not have. You ask him to give it to 50 out of a 100 people who have the same illness. If this scenario were true, a higher percentage of the 50 you asked would get better than the 50 you didn't
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@Graffight "It doesn't seem that this is the way that this verse in Matthew is intended to be understood. "
I'll grant you that. I'm not saying faith healers must exist, but you have two options: either prayer has an effect on god's actions or it doesn't. This study seems to show it has no effect on god's actions.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
To a Christian, prayer is not a mere event, but part of an intimate relationship with a Person. So the effect of a prayer request is believed to be caused by an Agent, with his own will and interests. As you know, an agent can withhold from answering a request possibly without making known his reasons. If God is an agent, we can expect this to happen.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy ". If God is an agent, we can expect this to happen."
But an agent also acts at some point, and when that agent acts, we should expect to see the effects of his action. You cannot have an action that has literally no effect. So if god answers prayers even 10% of the time and interceeds on behalf of the one that prays, that would be an extra 120 people that would benefit from this, and that should be shown in the statistics to some degree.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
Is this a genuine argument against God's existence? A scientific test of the effect of prayer would only be adequate,
1) if there existed a necessary cause and effect relationship between God and a prayer request, such that prayer requests would repeatably and consistently show similar effects;
2) if we knew all the possible causes, both material and immaterial, involved.
Neither are the case, so a scientific test of prayer is inadequate.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy
1) How can both the material and the immaterial be involved? In perticular of what value is the immaterial? Doesn't involvement imply material manifestation?
2)Since when do we have to know EVERYTHING to know if ANYTHING works?
How would you eliminate "wishful thining" or placebo as a cause/effect from prayer?
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
1) No, not necessarily, for, to a Christian, prayer also plays a role in the spiritual realm, so that there may be spiritual causes involved in unanswered prayer, such as sin or spiritual warfare.
2) I'm not saying that, but if a scientist presupposes that only natural causes should be taken into account, s/he cannot claim to know fully how prayer works, because other causes that may be involved are being excluded.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy
1) So for a christian ...ghosts are involved in mystical warfare and wishfulfillment?
2) Exactly how do you account for or include...non-natural immaterial factors in a factual way?
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
1) If that is how you understand it....
2) Well, you can't in a scientific way, as I said. And how you can make sense of it, depends on your worldview, I guess.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy
1) Am I supposed to understand "spiritual realms and warfare" in some other context than ghosts beig involved in wish fulfillment? Seriosuly?
2) Since when is perception the same as reality? If it's true, shouldn't it depend on FACTS? Don't facts require science?
3) Why are you guessing?
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
If by "ghosts", you mean spirits or angelic beings, then that's fine by me.
Our perception of the world is also shaped by reality and no, not all facts require scientific proof. Moreover, it seems to me that the question: "do we know immaterial beings do not exist?" can only be answered in a theistic ("No, immaterial beings do exist") or agnostic way ("No, we don't know").
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Not all facts require scientific proof? then you do not grasp what a FACT is.
As always you ask the WRONG QUESTION. Do we know immarterial beings DO exist? No, of course not. There's no FACTS to support such a claim.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy how do we measure or otherwise observe the difference between the supernatural and the imagined?
greycloud24 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy the same can be said for electromagnatism. how can we PROVE that god isn't making electricity work? the same can be said about anything at all. the difference is that we can measure statistic probability and use it as a guideline. this is how we come up with cool inventions like computer semi-conductors. so far anything to do with the supernatural is unproven and by default impossible (if a god did exist, it would be a natural creature).
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24
"by default impossible (if a god did exist, it would be a natural creature)"
This is quite a presumptuous assertion to make. How do you know that there is nothing beyond nature? Suppose nature exists and the existence of the supernatural has not been proven, how does it logically follow that nature is all there is? It only follows that you simply don't know whether the supernatural exists.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy the definition of natural is to occur through rules that govern existance. if a god does exist than it fits within this structure. to say supernatural is to say that it does not occur through rules that govern existance, which is another way of saying fictional.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
"How would you eliminate "wishful thining" or placebo as a cause/effect from prayer? "
If an answered prayer is illusory, this presupposes that you know what really happened, apart from what you requested it to be. So "wishful thinking" implies "God had nothing to do with it." How would you know? Prayer is not mechanical. There are no "cheat codes" or "tricks" to have it your way all the time. If we pray to God, we pray "Thy will be done".
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Nobody gets what they want all the time, even if god dens't exist. So, how do you know god had anything to do with it in the first place? You might as well ask a Magic 8-ball.
And even if god did answer prayers, what was the point of asking or makinf the prayer, if his will was done as he intended to... in the first place?
Either there's a divine plan...in which case praying is a waste of time...
...or you're all making things up as you go along.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
Well, theologically, there is no problem in assuming that God in his foreknowledge would have designed the natural course of events in such a way that it neatly fits with an answer to your prayer or that God lowered himself to the temporal level at the point of creation. Anyhow, a Christian can gather all its resources from within his/her worldview to make sense of the relationship between God's foreknowledge and God's answering of prayers.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy REALISTICALLY speaking, you would still have to ASSUME either the outcome is rigged in advance like a stack of dominoes, or the outcome is arbitrary as god interfears with the flow of events to suit his purpose alone.
This makes playing the game pointless and meaningless, since dues ex machina ruins the need for character development in the plot.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
You're assuming that human beings are merely pieces of dominoes in a chain of cause and effect initiated by God. Per contrast, I believe human beings are causal agents themselves, pushing a line of dominoes, and therefore responsible for their own actions.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy What causes them to push that line of dominoes? The problem with your philosophy is that you have agents as being an uncaused cause, and that simply isn't the case. What we do, we do because we are caused to do it, and that can be shown via psychology.
Can you really state that experiences have not shaped your actions?
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HonestDiscussioner
"What we do, we do because we are caused to do it"
I disagree. I believe what we do, we do for specific reasons, but reasons by themselves don't have any effect, unless the person freely chooses to act for that reason.
"Can you really state that experiences have not shaped your actions?"
No, but "shaped" merely calls to mind an influential relationship, not a causal relationship.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy "Theologically speaking" any ridiculous myth is possible because time and space(aka REALITY AS WE KNOW IT) are non-factors.
If god's foreknowledge was something to brag about creating satan was a big mistake which only led to necessitate pre-meditated murder on gods part. As was starting with Adam, and not Noah.
Oh wait, it's all "Part of the plan". Horrible plan. Start a fire, to put it out.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy
You seem like a smart guy, let's try and break this down again.
Between "God's foreknowledge" and "God's answer" is "God's will", which is supposedly foretold and absolute.
So this means your requests and input are totally meaningless, since whatever you would do or ask is subject to absolute totalitarian foreknowledge.
If god does what he wants ANYWAY, then human will is unessecary if not totally impossible.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
No, you're assuming foreknowledge = foreordainment, which is not necessarily true. God may foreknow your choices and requests, but does not necessarily foreordain them. Also, foreknowledge is from a human point of view bound by time, suggesting that God's knowledge is prior to your choice, but from God's point of view, it would simply be knowledge, since He is timeless and views your life in the unbounded now.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Wait so if I make an illusionary wish and it somehow comes true, that presumes I know how it really happened? No it doens't.
I made a wish at the wishing well. My wish happens to have come true. What does that prove? Absolutly nothing. If it doens't come true what does that prove? Absolutly nothing.
You're not accounting for wishful-thinking, and happenstance, which are both FAR MORE LIKLEY than a wish-fulfilling deity.
Your logic doens't follow.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
Yet, as I attempted to explain, in case of an answered prayer request, how will you know that God had nothing to do with it?
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy
In case of an answered Hindu prayer request how do you know Vishni, Shiva, Ganesh, or Burahma had nothing to do with it at all?
In case the lucky numbers on my fortine cookie WERE right, how do you know the fortune cookie has nothing to do with it at all? What about wishing wells? What about Lucky Charms?
That doens't explain anything at all. you're asking th wrong question.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
I'm not explaining anything. I'm merely suggesting that wishful thinking or sheer coincidence are not necessarily true for an answered prayer request, if God exists. If God exists, it may very well be that your prayer request was answered.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy No you most certainly anr't explaning anything.
Prayers requests are indistinguishable from wishful thinking.
An existing god would be sheer coinsidense.
You might as well claim that if Wishing Wells grant wishes, then it very well be that out wishes were answered by the Wishing Well. It's mythological nonsense.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
"Prayers requests are indistinguishable from wishful thinking."
Yet this is only true, if naturalism is true. From a naturalistic point of view, even the question "Why doesn't God answer prayers?" has no validity at all.
In other words, the atheist would have to show that there is an incompatibility between the existence of God and unanswered prayers.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy That's unreasonable. The burden of proof is on the theists to prove they're not TALKING TO THEMSELVES, genius. Science demonstrated that naturalism is EVIDENT. Meanwhile, supernaturalism is NOT remotly evident.
Do I need to prove the incompatability of Wishing Wells, Four Leaf Clovers, Lucky Rabbits feet, or Magic 8-Balls? Of course not. From a naturalistic point of view, prayer is totally valid to question as any "placebo affect" brought about through wishful thinking.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy
Do you have ANY factual evidence for gods existance? Or for ANYTHING supernatural whatsoever?? How do you scientifically TEST for supernatural involement? Are you kidding?
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
I believe God's existence is evident from nature, our moral consciousness, Jesus resurrection from the dead and religious experience and is personally and existentially satisfying. You don't scientifically test for the supernatural, you scientifically infer the supernatural.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Nature is evidence of the supernatural? Then you don't understand what EVIDENCE is. Evidence is quantifiable. The supernatural is not.
From whence comes the supernatural? Can you infer the super-dupernatural from the supernatural? You have evidence the living dead or pregnant virgins? Doyou have evidence of a SINGLE supernatural FACT? No...that makes no sense.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
I'm afraid you need to practice some more philosophy. "Evidence is quantifiable." Really, is all evidence quantifiable? What quantifiable evidence do you have for that assumption? I hope you do know that empirical positivism is unable to satisfy its own truth claim. If we cannot directly empirically prove X, does this mean that X does not exist? What direct empirical evidence do we have for the existence of my mind beside your own? (I hope this question does not frighten you.)
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy I'm afraid you need to practice some more MYTHOLOGY. Or do you?
Yes, evidence is quantifiable, that's what evidence is and how facts are tentitivly constituted. Les you gie creedence to mindless speculation. Naturalistic methodology, for example, is the phylosophy that evidently made your computer.
Naturally, science produces factually evidenced RESULTS. Supernatural Myscticism does not. dont' pretend theolgoy is philosophy.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
Do you believe that science can account for everything?
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy If the word "exist" has any meaning whatsoever, then science must account for what exists or else it serves no purpose. Science is knowledge. If it exists, it must be known to exist before it can be accounted for.
Has anything supernatural EVER been accounted for? Of course not.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
You did not answer my question. So again: Do you believe that science can account for everything?
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Yes infact I did answer your question, perhaps you need to dust off your reading comprehention skills.
Science is knowledge.
If the word "exist" has any meaning whatsoever, then science MUST account for what exists or else it serves no purpose. If it EXISTS, it must be KNOWN to exist before it can be accounted for. So yes.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
"So yes." So you do believe science can account for everything. Well, I disagree. Science cannot account for the truths it presupposes, such as logic, math, uniformity of nature, law of causality, analogy of language, reliability of the senses etc. nor for aesthetic and ethical judgement or metaphysical truths,eg existence of my thoughts beside yours, the past etc.Last but not least, science cannot account for itself: scientific-philosophical truths cannot be proven scientifically.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy What are you talking about? I never said science KNOWS everything. I said science CAN know everything. Pay attention.
Science is a work in PROGRESS. It is not automatically OMNI-SCIENCE.
If it EXISTS IN NATURE it is SUBJECT to SCIENCE. Period. And once more:
You have not a single solitary supernatural fact. PERIOD.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
"I said science CAN know everything."
I just told you what it can't know and will never know. Nature, history etc. may be subject to science, and perhaps, we might know almost everything about it someday, but science will always remain subject to philosophy/reasonable faith. Reasonable faith/philosophy makes science possible. Period. Reasonable faith is all that is required to show the truth of God's existence. Period.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Yes I heard what you told me but you are wrong. Once more, it if it EXISTS in NATURE (which science studies), then it is subject to the purview of SCIENCE. Science is KNOWLEDGE. So, if it EXISTS in NATURE it CAN be KNOWN. Period.
FAITH has nothing whatsoever to do with science, because faith and reason are antithetical concepts. Science is EVIDENCE AND RESULTS BASED. Faith is based solely on WISHFUL THINKING and GULLIBILITY. Period.
There is no such thing as a SUPERNATURAL FACT.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
"Science is KNOWLEDGE. So, if it EXISTS in NATURE it CAN be KNOWN."
Science is knowledge obtained through scientific method. But I argued that are things we know that are not obtained through the scientific method. And there you agree, for you claim that NATURE can be known through the scientific method. Thus according to you the SUPERNATURAL cannot even be known through this method, hence the question: why believe naturalism is true, if you don't have a method to assess otherwise?!
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy I agreed to no such thing.
Science is the body of all of human knowledge. There is no such thing as a FACT which isn't scientific. No such thing exists. Nature is all we know anything about, and everything we know anything about. Naturalism is true because it is EVIDENT.
The supernatural cannot be known by ANY MEANS. It is NOT evident, it is UNKNOWN and remains indistinguishable from baseless mythology.The fact remains you have not a single solitary supernatural fact.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
"There is no such thing as a FACT which isn't scientific."
That's funny, I just mentioned a few facts that aren't scientific. Hence, there are most definitely things we accept as true without a scientific basis.
If you assume that "the supernatural cannot be known by any means", then naturalism is not evident: you're simply left in the dark, you simply can't ever know whether naturalism is true. However, more interestingly, how CAN you KNOW that the supernatural CAN't be KNOWN?
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy What's funny, is that you named some things you either don't understand or that are as of yet unexplained by science, which makes them UNKNOWN at best. nmot supenatural.
What's funny is that I don't need to assume, the supernatural can't be known. You STILL havn't a single solitary supernatural fact.
The supernatural CAN be known at ALL? How? Explain? List a single supernatural fact. You won't, because you can't. That's how myths work.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
"you either don't understand or that are as of yet unexplained by science"
Oh, but I do understand them properly. Yet your fancy idea that science can explain itself is preposterous. Moreover, the idea that it is unknown, e.g. that child abuse is wrong, is absurd. Science may be able to explain how moral beliefs arise, but it can (by definition) not show that these beliefs are true.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
"The supernatural CAN be known at ALL? How?"
Yes, the supernatural can be known. Using reason, logic and observation we can infer God's existence as the best explanation of the facts.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy So your argument here is that dispite science knowing that morals reguarding child abuse exist in NATURE, and arise by NATURAL means, they they are verified as true... supernaturally and not by their RESULTS in societies which exist in nature?
Again how do you understand this properly?
Have you a single solitary supernatural fact? No, once again, of course you don't because the supernatural is baseless assumption fuled by overactive imaginations.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
Once again, even if I granted that moral beliefs originate in evolution and society, as science might show, this says nothing about the truth of these beliefs. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist, then there are no moral truths, no moral facts, then a moral judgment "child abuse is wrong" would be indistinct from an entirely subjective judgment like "that Emo hairstyle of yours is so out!".
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy So, even though moral beliefs about harming children exist naturally and are applied in nature where their results are evident...there's somehow no discernible method for ascertaing the objective validity of the harmful nature of those beliefs without nessecitating a being who itself isn't narutal... or objectivly verdiable??? Is that what you're saying? If so I not only disagree but STILL request the evidence for any supernatural facts.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Have you been rendered so incapable of critical thought, that you cannot see the objecitonable moral difference between a visually offensive haircut, and the harming of children? Where's the harm in a haircut: Nowhere.
Where's the harm in child abuse: Everywhere.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Let's pretend to be omniscient.
Is the premeditated act of drowning every living thing that breathed(men women and children) to spare the family of an obedient slave named Noah, who you know will later sleep with his daughters to repopulate the earth...the most moral or ethical means by which to deal with the situation? What about slaughtering the first born of egypt to release ungreatful slaves? This is your high objective standard of morality and love? Really?
EntinludeX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EntinludeX
FAITH has nothing whatsoever to do with science, because faith and reason are antithetical concepts."
I would argue that they enhance each other. We have good REASONS to BELIEVE, e.g., that the senses are reliable, therefore we accept it as true. We have good REASONS to BELIEVE that God exists, therefore we accept it s true.
How do you asses the factuality of the fact that there are no facts beside natural facts?
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy As to your "scary" question... surely you are joking.
Is there such a thing as a "mind" without a "brain"? No, of course not. No such thing is evidenced. Done.
So either you're a hallucination and talking to myself, you're a less-than clever computer simulation, or you have a brain... attatched to a body... using a computer. Gee, which is more probable I wonder?? DUH.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
Have you ever measured or weighed a thought? IS a mental state quantifiable? So what quantifiable evidence do you have that my personal thoughts and subjective experiences in my mind exist beside your own? Science cannot account for such metaphysical truths.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy However, and I can't believe I am engaging in such high school philosophy, not being able ot OBSERVE X means the X is merely speculation, and inference from Y can only be assumend if there is no other possiblity other than X MUST = Y. However, Y has never been explicable by ONLY X and even where Y is unexplained, X still =/= Y. X is an logical fallacy to fill the gaps in knowledge every time, 100% of the time.
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere
Have you ever observed the law of excluded middle or the law of non-contradiction or Alexander the Great in the flesh? And yet it is perfectly rational to accept them as true.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Nonsense, our moral consciousness is a natural product of our survival instinct as tribal social animals. We care about the other primates in our tribe because it benefits us all to look after one another. It's that simple.
There is no scentifically factual evidence for a ressurection or any supernatural phenomenon. All you're doing is proving your capacity for baseless wishful thinking extrapolated from bronze age mythology.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
If our moral beliefs are the result of evolution, this says nothing about the truth of these beliefs. If God does not exist, then, indeed, objective moral values do not exist and morality simply is arbitrary and subjective like your preference for chocolate ice cream or a peculiar hairstyle.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy No, it doesn't becuse just because you BELIEVE SOMETHING doens't make it FACT. It is EVIDENCED by the fact we are the decendants of cavemen, who's instincts to not slaughter one another worked long before deities and their arbitrary loyalty oaths were invented by their decendants.
Even if god does exist, what sort of TWISTED example is that of moral objectivity? Who created SATAN or DEATH as a means to TEST for OBEDIENCE?That would be an act of UNTOLD EVIL, if it were true.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
"No, it doesn't becuse just because you BELIEVE SOMETHING doens't make it FACT." That's what I said: If we have moral beliefs because of evolution, this says NOTHING about the truth of these beliefs. So evolution is irrelevant. Same applies to instincts. I may grant that we have moral instincts, but still what urges you to choose one instinct over the other? It can't be an instinct itself, and therefore morality is trans/metha-instinctive.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Morality IS subjective and objetive morallity DOES NOT exist.. So what is your point, exactly?
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere
If God does not exist, then you're right, there is no objective right and wrong, everything is permitted, then any moral judgment of someone's behaviour would be as meaningless as your opinion of, for ex., their hair style, as C.S. Lewis wrote: "If [Nazis] had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair."
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
(cont'd) Moreover, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate meaning or purpose to life. Let's just all do what ever we want, be merry and enjoy life, for tomorrow we cease to be.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy However, we DO have a collective morallity. An agreed resonant morality evolved from our history as a gregorious tribe animal. Society "resonates together " as Durkheim would put it. Without that resonance, we would crumble. Not having objective morallity does not mean anything is permisable. Evolution and society see to that.
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere
So if the Nazis had successfully conquered the whole of human society, it would be morally right to torture and kill Jews, negroes, handicapped etc.? If atheism is true, this would be the case. But that is absurd! Moreover, if atheism is true, then there is no reason to assume that human beings are special. If we continue to find stealing, rape and killing in the animal kingdom, what grounds do you have to condemn them and why favour the human species over them?
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy No, thats not the case. It would, and indeed was, morally right from the point of view of the Nazis, to do what they did. But not from the point of view of the rest of society. There is a certain way humanity must behave, genetically and morally, and this is why the same morals exist in 90% of religions and philosphies.
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere
Ok, so say, Nazis conquered the world, what if Goebbels brainwashed all of society into Nazi thinking? Would it then become morally right to kill and torture, to systematically exterminate, innocent Jews? No, of course not. Why? Because it is immoral to do so in whatever society at whatever point of time: it is a moral truth that is true independent of what human beings believe. Therefore, God exists. For if God does not exist, such moral truths do not exist.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Actually no, it would be seen as morally right by most of society; I can site historical moments which such a society existed suc as the Roman empire and the Greek empire- the inquisition too. However, certain morals are genetically inherent in us, as they are in all gregarious animals, so anything that goes too far and breaks the biological whip is simply not allowed, gentically. I has nothing to do with God, otherwise god would not change his mind so often as to what morals are.
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere
Really? So someone who behaves immoral simply has bad genes? That's quite a knock-out of human responsibility! I'm sorry, judge, I can't help it, I have bad genes, I was genetically compelled to kill that ****, who took away my girlfriend!
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy No, not bad genes, but some socio-phsychological porblem that allows them to ignore the biological whip. It is, in the case of basic morality, inherent in all gregarious animals. M0rality is just a word we put on gentitc and social behvaiour we are compelled to follow and have socially agreed upon. Religious text are an example of that social agreement. God is not nescessary.
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrgodbehere
"Actually no, it would be seen as morally right by most of society"
But that is the whole point. If atheism is true, indeed, there would be nothing immoral to such a society to do so, for human opinion = moral truth. But I don't think so, and I hope you can agree, (unless you're morally handicapped) that genocide is morally wrong, whatever the whole of society may come to belief!
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy PS-= I didn't spam ya. I do agre genocide is wrong, but so does genetics. That is an infringement of the biological whip.
Anyway, sir, interesting as this chat is, I have to make food, so another time perhaps?
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere
Sure, I'd appreciate that. I'm always open to a sportive discussion and interested in hearing/reading your thoughts. You can also send me a PM, if you like. If my correspondent debates sportively and sincerely, I find it most valuable.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere
I don't believe people need God to recognize what is moral or immoral, but that they need God to justify their beliefs. You're assuming human morality is natural Yet morality is not about the natural behavioral interests of human beings. The natural experience of empathy or affection makes both moral and immoral behaviour possible. Rather, the question that is of moral significance is: how is a human being naturally SUPPOSED to behave? And that, mrgod, can only be grounded in God.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Not so, and that can be shown simply by pointing to non-theistic idealogies which have strong moral cores- Buddhism, Stoicism, etc. All you need is a moral core and that moral core MUST come from our nature. Otherwisem the atheistic Dhamapada and the theistic Sermon on the mount, for example, would not be so similar.
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere
Indeed, let's mention Jesus sermon on the mount. Do you believe it is natural for us to love our enemies, pray for those who prosecute us? I believe the entirety of history shows that this is false. It may even be naturally infeasible for human beings to do so. But can we all recognize that love for one's enemies is a profound moral good? Yes. See also my video:
youtube com/watch?v=AKsIZ-DptQ8
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrgodbehere
Indeed, let's mention Jesus sermon on the mount. Do you believe it is natural for us to love our enemies, pray for those who prosecute us? I believe the entirety of history shows that this is false. It may even be naturally infeasible for human beings to do so. But can we all recognize that love for one's enemies is a profound moral good? Yes. See also my video:
watch?v=AKsIZ-DptQ8
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy PS- nice to have an interesting conversation rather than talking to the bigoted iditos I found myself talking to earlier. :-)
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy "If God does not exist, then, indeed, objective moral values do not exist "
I agree. They also don't exist if god exists though. If you believe god is good and only does what is good, then good exists separate from God. If you believe Divine Command Theory and that whatever god says is good, therefore is, then this itself is just arbitrary and god can make anything good or evil, which makes it subjective as well.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner
But whoever said that I, as a theist, have to believe the Divine Command Theory is an adequate ethical theory? I don't. Per contrast, I believe Biblical Virtue Ethics is adequate.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Re-read the comment. You either believe in Divine Command Theory, which is by nature subjective, or you believe that good is separate from god . . .if you choose the latter that implies god is not necessary to be good, which sort of flies in the fact of a large chunk of the new testament.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner
But do you not see the absurdity in what you are saying: "good is separate from god". I don't believe such a thing as "goodness" can ever exist outside of a person. Moral values have to reside in a person. The good is an essential property of God's character, his nature, so to speak. He is the epitome: as he revealed himself in Christ, God himself IS the standard of how a human being is supposed to be in order to live the excellent life in supreme happiness with him.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy the statistics however show that not praying is just as effective as praying (and in some cases more effective). this shows that either: A) god does not answer prayers that are being subjected to tests, or B) god does not answer prayers. this is all based on the ASSUMPTION that a god does indeed exist, which there has yet to be found ANY evidence to support the god hypothesis.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24
Indeed, if prayers don't show statistical advantage, it would not necessarily follow that God does not exist.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy And yet there is no evidence whatsoever for this mytholgical being.
Instead there is just alot of wishful thinking in the hopes that there is coincidentally a god to answer wishes. It's that simple.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
"Indeed, if prayers don't show statistical advantage, it would not necessarily follow that God does not exist."
Of course it doesn't. It just means the Bible is wrong and that the Christian god, as defined, cannot exist.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner
"It just means the Bible is wrong and that the Christian god, as defined, cannot exist."
How so?
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy Because it says in the bible that he who asks shall receive, and that shows the people that are asking aren't getting anything. Since god can't lie, the bible can't be inspired by god, which makes the religion baseless.
If you say your god is acting in this world, and yet his actions have no noticeable effects, it is much more reasonable to state he isn't acting at all.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner
Of course, he who asks for the Holy Spirit, shall receive him, but are you suggesting that not a single Christian has ever experienced an unanswered request? Are they all conspiring against the undeniable truth? I don't think so. Every Christian acknowledges that God doesn't answer all prayers, but surrendering to his will, by which he works everything for the good and will make all things right, they trust that God will supply every need in Christ Jesus.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
(cont'd)
It is as Jesus said: "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" (Mt 7:9-12)
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy If that line from Matthew is the case, why did prayer not seem to help the 600 people that were prayed over? That was my entire point! If Matthew is right, then indeed we should expect the 600 who were prayed over to not suffer as many complications as the ones that are not. This refutes your theory that prayer does anything!
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner
"This refutes your theory that prayer does anything!"
Only if you are assuming that there is a necessary causal relationship between God and prayer and that you know all the causes involved.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner In Matthew 4, 6-7 Devil asks Jesus Christ to make a miracle in order to prove his deity and the answer he got was that the Bible says that we should not test God. Aside from the fact that the praying groups might be suffering the heresy problem it can be still be explained by Biblical standards. For any Christian Follower, at least in the Eastern Orthodox Church this act is ungodly even if they aren't aware of the aforementioned statement.
nxavar 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy I never said Christians think he answers all prayers. My point is that no matter what happens, there is nothing that could happen that would show that god wasn't answering them. If things don't go as planned, it just wasn't your time, but if they DO go the way you want, it's only because god made it happen for you.
Try to answer this sentence if you can: "We know Jesus Christ exists, and that he answers our prayers, because if he didn't we would expect _____ to happen".
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner
The point is indeed that unanswered prayer does not falsify God's existence. The Christian believes God doesn't answer all request, but God hears them all and, if we surrender to his will, he will make all things right. There is a distinction between answering and hearing.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@HonestDiscussioner
If God had not raised Jesus from the dead, there would have been no Christianity in the first place. So, yes, God has acted in this world and we can expect him to act in this world again.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy you are correct. however there is no statement that can be made that necessarily follows that ANYTHING does not exist. this is why we do not attempt to disprove things, but rather fall on to the nil assumption that nothing exists and nothing happens. when we find that stuff does exist or does happen than we consider it to be true. until then, nothing exists and nothing happens.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24
Are you kidding? Scientists attempt to disprove things all the time, and, yes, we can disprove the existence of things. If your baby brother is frightened by the monster hiding in the closet, you can show him there is no monster there to fear.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy no science works on the assumption that nothing happens and nothing exists until shown to be otherwise, this is called a nil assumption and it is the only valid one we can make. we cannot prove there is no monster to fear, we can only prove it is not there when we opened the door or more accurately that we did not see it when we opened the door. it is still possible that there is a monster, and we simply did not see it.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy please give me ONE example of something that science DISPROVES. we can reject a hypothesis but we do not disprove it.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24
Well, I can name lots of things. Science has disproved that the earth is flat, that the earth is eternal, that the universe resolves around the earth etc. We can reject hypotheses based on various reasons, one of which is that it has been disproved. Indeed, if a scientific theory could not be falsified, we should be skeptical about it.
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy science has shown that the earth is near spherical in shape, but has not DISPROVED that it is flat. there is still a very very small chance that we are wrong and the world is indeed flat. what would have to happen for this to occur is that all known observances of the spherical world would have to be incorrect. the odds of this being the case are staggeringly low, the same kind of odds that a god that interacts with humans exists.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24
Do you not see what you are saying? Say, science doesn't disprove anything (as you claim), then neither does it prove anything. If science cannot prove that a flat earth doesn't exist, it cannot prove that a round earth exists. Of course, a flat earth and a round earth cannot coexist, either of the two has to be false. In light of the evidence it is beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is round. Or do you think you cannot know anything for certain?
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy i think you cannot know anything for certain. we simply agree that things are the way they are based upon prior observance and pattern recognition. the theory of gravity would be thrown out the door the second things started getting repulsed by gravity.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@Bucklehairy theory is an explanation based upon a bell curve of results of observances, measurements and tests. we can be extreemly confident that something is true, but we can never say anything is not true. there is always a small chance that something is true or untrue despite what we have observed and recorded. the math used is probability statistics and the probability of something being or not being the case is never 100% and never 0%.
greycloud24 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greycloud24
"we can be extreemly confident that something is true, but we can never say anything is not true."
If you say something is true, then you're also saying something else is false. In other terms, if you cannot know something is false, then you cannot know something is true. Hence, is, according to you, the truth unknowable?
Bucklehairy 1 year ago
If praying for wisdom works, then explain KassieDill?!
KingHeathen 1 year ago
@KingHeathen What do you expect god to be, some miracle worker or something? Oh . . wait . . well I guess some things take more than a miracle.
HonestDiscussioner 1 year ago