Topic awaiting preservation: Let us talk about Prayer. (Page 2 of 5)

Oh my aching back.

On the one hand the mythicists want us to believe their god is responsible for everything (genesis).

But when the logical flaw in that alleged reasoning is pointed out all of a sudden it is "oh, but not the bad stuff".

Sorry but, as out Amurican friends are fond of saying, that dawg won't hunt.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

meh, now that I've got in here against my better judgement I should say that I'm trackin with reitsma regarding "what prayer is". It's a conversation with my Father. It's my understanding and faith (the faith came first actually) that he's got the goods when it comes to wisdom so I'm very eager to hear his voice and talk to him as well. It's in these times of quiet conversation that my burdens and joys are most clear, to the point that I can find the most graceful way to respond to them and live them in out within the context of this life I'm living.

I think the "Lord's Prayer" as it's called, the one where Jesus gives his disciples an outline for prayer, is as it should be and is the model for effective prayer. There is nothing in that prayer that assumes that my will should be considered over his. Jesus' own prayer in the garden of Gethsemane (didn't _even_ bother looking up the proper spelling on that one) was one of resignation to the role he was playing, he expressed his deep desire to not be humiliated, tortured, thought of as a mortal nutjob criminal and killed as a common criminal, but in the end it was "not my will, but thine".

Most of you guys' antichristian arguments seem to assume that we know exactly what we're supposed to be doing and that's just not the case! Getting by as best we can is all, figuring it out as we go along, just like everyone else. The faith of a bazillion people is not to be taken piece by piece from a bazillion different sources and crammed together as an argument against the very thing we're struggling to attain.

If I fully figure this stuff out this will be my first stop but as I haven't, you'll have to pardon me for stopping by so infrequently.

quote:

---

Oh my aching back.

---

Yep, that was definitely the will of God.

I'm going to limit my response to your last comment, Ehtheist, simply because it's starting to wander off topic, and i know you like keeping things on topic.

Try and see where you are, from our situation. You say God doesn't exist - or if he does, you sure don't want anything to do with it. Essentially, God wants a relationship with humans, and you tell him, on no uncertain terms, to get stuffed. (Now, let's be honest - we all have.) Now, there's evil, and sadness, and wrong in the world, and you blame God?

Now, if a child does a good thing, you might give them a reward. If they then do a bad thing, and you still reward them, won't that screw things up a little? Of course, in the world, it's a little more complicated, and the causal effects are less direct, on many occasions. But essentially, we're all living in an imperfect world, and all that bad stuff? Well, that's just people getting their own way, without God getting in there.

Of course, luckily for us, he IS still here, doing little things like maintaining laws of physics, and keeping our bodies from spontaneous decombustion.... but eventually, those folk who lived and died their lives wanting to do things their own way, not wanting anything to do with God, will get what their after - life without God. But i don't think it will be quite as peachy as they think.

Ok, sorry about that continued discourse - shall we get back to prayer?

quote:

---

WarMage said:

There is and will always be an answer to any arguement you put forth, because it is setup that way.

---

I think you hit the nail square on its ugly head WarMage. You can't win arguments against zealots.

Drummond: If, as they say, the sun stood still, they must have had some kind of an idea that the sun moved around the earth. Do you think that's the way of things? Or don't you believe that the earth moves around the sun?

Brady: I have faith in the Bible.

Drummond: You don't have much faith in the solar system.

Brady: The sun stopped.

Drummond: Good! Now, if what you say actually happened -- if Joshua stopped the sun in the sky -- the earth stopped spinning on its axis, continents toppled over one another, mountains flew into space, and the earth, shriveled to a cinder, crashed into the sun. Now, how come they missed that little tidbit of news?

Brady: They missed it because it never happened.

Drummond: But it had to happen. It must've happened, according to natural law. Or don't you believe in natural law, Mr. Brady? Would you ban Copernicus from the classroom along with Charles Darwin? Would you pass a law throwing out all scientific knowledge since Joshua? Revelations, period?!

Brady: Natural law was born in the mind of the heavenly Father. He can change it, cancel it, use it as He pleases. It constantly amazes me that you Apostles of Science, for all your supposed wisdom, fail to grasp this simple fact.

quote:

---

It's not that parents don't love their children when the children bite the other children, they administer discipline in hopes that the child will recall that actions have consequences. Individuals cannot have someone else's will forced on them, God or parent or police or whatever. We're all doin our own thing and gettin by as best we can, and gettin beat down when we screw up.

---

I absolutely hate the use of this type of analogy.

*IF* we could look around and see where the people who were being "beat down" had screwed up, and those who followed "god's will" in an exemplary fashion were not also being beat down, this analogy might hold up a bit.

But the world doesn't work that way.
Good decent people spend their whole lives doing the right thing, following their religious teachings, and getting beat down for it all the time.

To equate the horrible things in life that so many people go through to punishing a child for biting just don't cut it....
To say that all the bad things that happen are due to people not wanting anything to do with god very clearly misses the point being discussed, and shits all over all the people who have been faithful loving servants of god and died horrible painful deaths anyway, or watched their children die horrible painful deaths...



(Edited by DL-44 on 04-07-2005 03:07)

"beat down" was meant as "experienceing the consequences of our actions" - bad choice of wording there, you should have known I'm prone to flippant rethoric like that and interpreted accordingly

It *does* rain on the just and the unjust alike, no doubt. The story of Job is a prime example. I'm talking about a relationship with God here tho and the consequence of these actions are ultimately seperation from him. Job had a very strong relationship and it couldn't be broken, he suffered bad fu without a doubt but he was not crushed. I was not intending to equate the 2 things, just an analogy, but it is a very close likeness in my opinion, one I stick by without reservation.

Every single one of Jesus' original disciple died grizzly, horrible deaths at the hands of their persecutors, for this relationship that they would not abandon. There's a perspective that seperates our 2 sides of this discussion and that perspective comes from that relationship or lack of, "beat down" but in the full company and good grace of God, it's bearable, even enjoyable (no I'm not going to fly any airplanes into any mosques or liberal think tanks anytime soon). I don't think either of us would convince the other until one of our perspectives came round to the other's, it's just unseeable from t/here.

I'm out! Don't you dare bait me twice! DL the troll.

There is no god.

There is no evidence to even suggest a god which a being from another planet, with no prior knowledge of either gods or humans, would find acceptable as proof.

Therefore reitsma (good dutch name-was related to one through marriage once-politician-'nuff said), your argument holds no water for me whatsoever.

Therefore: when one prays, there is no one listening and you are talking to yourself. This may have some theraputic value.

Consequently prayer is a waste of time, though it may help the pray-er continue to delude themselves.

I have no objection to self-delusion so long as the deluded don't try to infect others with the same delusion, whatever the subject matter.

If you pray and hear voices in response, well...

Zaddy, loved that bit of dialogue

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

There is no god.

---

prove it

this sort of things all comes down to personal perspective. we've all had experiences that have changed us in one way or the other, and it's those same personal experiences that are going to influence whether someone believes or doesn't believe. while these discussions/debates/whatever are interesting i don't think anyone is changing anyone else's mind, tho i do enjoy reading a variety of viewpoints on this sort of thing.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

There is no god.

prove it

---

Ah, but that is the point - I don't have to prove it. If it doesn't exist, I am certainly not going to try to prove that it does not exist. It is actually doing things backwards scientifically. Normally, one sees evidence of something happening, and then forms a theory, and tests it. One doesn't normally see no evidence of something, form a theory about the lack of evidence, and then attempt to find a lack of evidence to test it.

If I strictly used the scientific method to prove/disprove that god exists, then I can easily prove the non-existence : I never come to the point of seeing evidence of its existence. Therefore, there will be no theory, and no tests to prove it.

Prove that god does exist.

The Xians are saying that their god does exist. Prove it.

Yeah...we've been through that one over and over and over.

I can't prove the non-existence of giant pink dragons with puffy cotton-tails who shoot cotton candy out of their asses either.

=)

quote:

---

But the world doesn't work that way.
Good decent people spend their whole lives doing the right thing, following their religious teachings, and getting beat down for it all the time.

---

This is very true DL. This sums up "the life of a Christian in progress." And the key for the faithful is to follow the example of Job and continue to have faith no matter what obstacles we face in life. We feel we cannot let the ways of darkness which bring accidents, illness, suffering & abuses to kill our spirit. We feel to give into the belief that because life is so hard for some in its tragic circumstances then there must be no God, would be to give into what Satan wants us to believe. And Satan, being the master of deceit and lies is allowed to fool many and has power of them. We must persevere by our faith in prayer which produces many fruits and gifts. Yes, there are good people out there who are not believers. Who live by their own moral code and do not attribute anything created to God. So they do not pray. For myself, I cannot accept that the secular human is not invited to prayer. He is beckoned but resists. Prayer is a surge of the heart, a simple look towards heaven. Its a cry of recognition and love embracing the trials and joys of our life. In our prayer life, humility is the foundation of prayer. So we must let go of our ego. In scripture, it speaks of the soul or the spirit, but most often of the heart (more than a thousand times). It is the heart that prays. If our heart is far from God, the words of prayer are in vain. "The heart is the dwelling-place where I am, where I live where I withdraw" according to the Bible. The heart is our hidden center, beyond the grasp of our reason and of others. Humanity is limited in its understanding of what the heart knows. Only the spirit of God can fathom the human heart and know it fully. The heart is the place of decision, deeper than our psychic drives. It is the place of truth, in where we choose life or death. It is the place of encounter, because as we are made in the image of God we live in relation with God. I will always pray that all hearts will be called to God by prayer.

You can prove that something doesn't exist. There are many current problems that people are working on that people are hoping is true, and would love to prove false. You will ofter in mathematics here about the NP-Hard problems, one of these is factoring large numbers. There is no known method to factor numbers in logarithmic time. You can either try to prove this true, or your can prove this false it is all in how you prove this.

The easiest way to prove something false is a proof by contradiction. Which I have seen here numerous times by many of the individuals here when talking about the bible. We can have a premise like such.

The bible is the word of god therefore Everything in the bible is true.

Now, I am sure we can make a relation of some type linking the bible to god and his omnipotence, so that when an element of the bible is proved false, you prove the word of god false, thus proving god false.

You could also take the statement that god is everywhere. If you are to find a single spot where there is no god, then you have proved god false.

These are all ways to prove something false, logically, using the scientific method. I am sure that they would all be rather complicated. And in the end utterly worthless.

Worthless because human have a great capacity to confuse issues that they don't completely understand. An easy example is people who will misrepresent something like carbon dating because they don't really understand the properties of atomic decay. There are many such things, once you present an idea that would require real effort to verify you are going to have massive numbers of people who will just take it as fact, or another large segment who will completely misrepresent it because they don't really understand it.

Dan @ Code Town

In science, the proof is always in the positive.

That is, if one claims something is thus and so in the absence of any evidence to support that claim, then the one making the the claim must prove it, not the reverse.

You may say "I can prove god exists by all that I see about me!" this proves only your belief in that theory and proves nothing which would fit either legal or scientific requirements.

We who disbelieve await your proof oh mighty Fig.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

To both JK and Jade -

I understand very well the idea of keeping your faith despite hardship and the like. I understand very well doing the right thing regardless of reward - it's the kind of idea that a great number of athiests live by, because we don't see the 'eternal' reward, the concept of which keeps many christians going.

Point is, I am constantly hearing analogies with the purpose of demonstrating that bad things happen because people didn't do what god wants them to. But it doesn't hold up - period.

Job is the perfect example to refute the analogy, yet he is being used to try to hold the analogy together.

It's nonsense.

Bad things happen. Good things happen. They happen to both good and bad people, to the faithful of every religion, to those of no religion, to those who pray, to those who curse god and other deities.

To say that bad things happen because we went against god, and good things happen because we follow god is just plain nonsense.

With that train of thought we're right back to sacrificing goats (and maybe even virgin girls) every time the crop is a little weak...

quote:

---

Prove that god does exist.

The Xians are saying that their god does exist. Prove it.

---

In order to prove God exists you'd have to know exactly what God is, other than the Father allmighty of course

Why wouldn't it be the grand unified theory?

Perhaps the Bible is a book of self-empowering self-delusional stories, based on apparent facts and metophores for events.

If you're an atheist why try and disprove something and discuss something that you don't believe in? Sounds like a waste of enerjy to me...

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Zaddy, loved that bit of dialogue

---

It was from "Inherit the Wind" based on the famous monkey (Scopes) Trial.

I thought it would illustrate War Mage's point that you can't argue with fanatics...

p.s. an excellent play i've you have the opp to read it.

Thanks etheist.

You've shown that it's not just the xians who resort back to the old default arguments, like dan proposed.

Instead of trying to pursue an intellectual discussion on it's current course, and pick holes (of which i am sure there are many) in my logic by approaching things from my perspectives and assumptions; instead of 'humoring' me and supposing there is a God, and seeing how my post addresses the issues you raised in your previous post (about the dawg that won't hunt), you just bid a hasty retreat to your standard statement that there is no God, and any further discussion on this point is simply me pushing my delusions on to you.

Well, I've tried to approach your position in a relatively mature fashion (as much as someone like me is able!), and discuss things in a civilised manner, but i think it's come down to this:

Webshaman has raised the topic:

quote:

---

Prayer doesn't work

---

Your submission, in response to this topic, is:

quote:

---

As to prayer, just talkin' to yerself.

---

I think that's about all you can contribute to this thread. Thanks for coming. Please, go and share your thoughts in a "does God exist" thread, but i really couldn't care less whether or not my argument in this thread holds any water for you.

If webshaman raises a topic discussing the use of prayer, i think that pretty much implies that he is willing to accept that some people will base their arguments on the fact (or their theory, as i'm sure you would prefer) that God exists.



(Edited by reitsma on 04-08-2005 01:26)

Sorry old boy, but in a long life I have never heard an intellectual discussion on religion, though I have taken part in a lot of discussion and some argument on the topic.

The very concept of religion is contrary to intellect and so one wonders how such a discussion could even be said to exist any more than could your mythical god or gods.

It remains, I am afraid, for those claiming the positive to prove same, running from the field of discourse accusing the other side of doing the same seems rather an admission of one's inability to do so.

Present me with some evidence or even agrument supporting your unfounded theory and I shall be pleased to perforate same.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

I have never heard an intellectual discussion on religion

---

i may be wrong, but from what i've read on your posts so far, i'm pretty sure you think you've never considered as 'intellectual' anything that contradicts your opinions and beliefs.

happy to further discuss my unintellectual beliefs in comparison to your irrefutable, arrogant logic in another thread, at another time, time permitting.

but as i said, i think you've communicated as fully as you are able your view on prayer, and i don't see how any more of your responses that 'your logic is futile, God does not exist' will in any way contribute positively to this thread.

as for convincing you, well, the only way i know how would contradict my moral stance, and leave you with no chance to act upon your newfound belief...

*mystically appears out of thin air
*passes around glasses full of poison kool-aid
*opens a barrel of rattlesnakes

*giggles

i'm no authority, but i believe the data collected so far points toward the effectiveness of prayer as being positive

but, then again, you might just be a Satanist praying for my firey, painful demise

arggh!

hehe







couldn't resist

You could pray for me rietsma. Had a fellow try that once, decided he would pray me dead.

I feel just fine thank you. ROFLMAO

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

If webshaman raises a topic discussing the use of prayer, i think that pretty much implies that he is willing to accept that some people will base their arguments on the fact (or their theory, as i'm sure you would prefer) that God exists

---

This is a true statement. I am willing to accept that some will do just that. In fact, I was hoping that more than some would, and would be willing to expand on it.

WS, i've actually been reading thru a lot of this and will respond when i can really sit and collect my thoughts. some interesting points overall.

ehtheist, i'm not planning to nor do i feel a real need to 'prove' God to you, and you're right, i probably couldn't anyway. my personal experiences have convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that He is indeed real, and i'm quite sure nothing other than thata personal experience would convince you either. any proof i tried to provide of God's existence to you would be as meaningless as any proof to the contrary you had for me.

there also are many rather intelligent people who are religious despite your belief to the contrary, sorry to disappoint.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

It is because a belief is not a logical thing, it is an emotional thing. I also find that saying definitively that something does not exist just because you have no evidence of it to be a bit silly.

There was no evidence of the Americas to those in Europe, but Chris found them anyways.

One of the things we do as humans, explorers and inventors is make up hypothetical situations and then try and prove or disprove them. The more foreign the situation, the farther from our understanding of reality the better the result as it has potential to turn all other preconceived ideas on their head.

I think simply saying that something can't exist because there is no evidence one way or the other is just as block headed as saying that they same definitely exists. The most intelligent religious people I know would easily tell me that of course there is the possibility that there is no god, but that they in their faith will discount this possibility, and that this possibility is a test of their faith. They were free to argue intelligently on any set of premises that you could lay down for them.

The real test of an intelligent individual is not being able to make snap judgments based on your preconceived ideas, but to be able to accept any variables give by any situation and make an intelligent response to it, those be both real and imagined. If you get bogged down to much by any of your beliefs to such a time that you can't accept the possibility of your error, or that an alternate solution might exist you have become a very stale individual. This works both ways for those with faith and those without faith.

Dan @ Code Town

I agree with your assesment WM.

I repeat a quote I heard many years ago and I believe in it fully.

"If it can be thought of in the mind, its possible" And this also refers to the scientific as well as the supernatural.

quote:

---

There was no evidence of the Americas to those in Europe, but Chris found them anyways.

---

That is not true. The Vikings knew about the Land long before ol Chris decided to try to find a Western route to India.

And the point about trying to find evidence that doesn't exist, as opposed to trying to find evidence for something that no-one has prior knowledge of are two different things. Trying to prove something with NO evidence is futile, however.

It is often mentioned, that there can be no evidence that god exists (although I don't know where this source is stated - is it in the bible?). That is a nice, completely circular, closed theory, if you will.

Take the Americas - even though most Europeans back then didn't know of them, a quick examination of Geometry tells us that the earth is round, and that the size in the Western direction to India is pretty big. That's a lot of ocean.

Chris obviously didn't take much time to measure stuff, or he would have known that he was not in India.

In any regards, having absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, to support that something exists, results in something being declared as not existing. Scientifically, no-one would even be able to form a theory, because there is no observation to form one from.

A good example are Quarks. For 1000 years ago, no-one had the slightest clue that they existed. And guess what? No one formed a theory that they existed back then, either.

It was only later (much later) that certain observations led to their prediction, which led to experiments, etc.

Obviously a lack of known evidence does not prove that something does not exist.

But again - if we're talking about proof, the burden is most definitely on those who would prove that something *does* exist.
And until such proof is offered, it can be reasonably assumed that it does not exist.

As for the original topic - the observations and questions posed by WS can easily be treated seperately from the question of whether or not god exists. The question is 'what does prayer accomplish?'

The answer from my point of view is this:

Prayer has the power to help an individual focus on his/her personal goals, to develop a positive energy, and through the concept of some sort of divine interaction, give encouragement, hope, comfort, esteem, clarity or calmness, etc to the individual.

There are many ways of doing this without throwing the idea of gods in their, but there is no doubt that such practices can be beneficial to the individual with or without the god concept.

I have seen nothing to suggest (with any actual evidence) that prayer can affect anything or anyone other than the individual, or affect the individual in any way other than what I have mentioned above.

Bottom line: prayer, like meditation and other 'self-help' type activities, can have a positive effect on the individual. And that is the extent of it.

If you didn't like my Americas example how about we try this one.

Lets then take your quark example. There is no evidence that there is any particle smaller than a quark. It is believed that quarks are the base particle. I am going to say that it is my idea contrary to the provided evidence that there are particles smaller than quarks. Noone can disprove it at this point, and noone can prove it either, but by having the idea out there people can at least think about it.

As for noone having formed a theory, they didn't have to. I am sure a lot of people 1000 years ago smoked a bunch of hashish or opium, and in the drug induced haze said "You know man, that idea of Atom, I bet there are particles, like even totally smaller than that, and then even smaller than that, forever and ever man, until, shit man, I don't even know, but pretty fucking small." Would they have called it a quark I don't know it isn't the point.

The point is that I am sure someone openned up their mind at some time to something that seemed completely illogical and contrary to the evidence of the time and came up with some pretty cool stuff. That is what exploring is all about. If people didn't do this we wouldn't advance. You do not have to have evidence of something in order to explore it. You have an idea and then you see if you can find evidence to support it, or if the evidence you find disproves it.

Having no evidence doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. Having no evidence means that if you want to prove something you have to work at coming up with evidence. Some people might see having no evidence as proving something doesn't exist, but they are closing their minds and limiting themselfs.

We have no evidence that there is life other than ourselves in the universe, none. But we still look, we still search, and we still try and find it. An intelligent person would not say, the only life in the universe is on Earth, and intelligent person would say, we haven't found life outside of earth, but we are looking into it.

Again, no evidence for something does not mean it doesn't exist, it means that if you want to prove that it exists it is your job to both interest others towards your cause and to find evidence of to prove your theory.

Evidence to the contrary of something is a completely different story, but no evidence doesn't prove a thing.

Dan @ Code Town

But that's all irrelevant.

People have been talking and thinking about god for thousands of years.
and yet still there is nothing...

The analogies you are trying to peice together don't work.

No, lack of evidence does not *prove* non-existence. But - again - we don't have to prove non-existence when there is no evidence for existence, and we cannot do such a thing - whether we are talking about quarks, particles smaller than quarks, god, or any other such issue.

In the case of quarks, simply talking about the possiblity of their existence and syaing such things as "I know they must be there" without backing it up with evidence was not enough. Their existence needed to be proven. And it has been.

Had a person talking about quarks brought the issue up, and when met with a skeptic who said they did not exist, told them to prove they did not exist, they would be completely ignored - there is no reason to disprove something that has no evidence for being true in the first place.

It really is that simple: No evidence does not disprove. But something with no evidence does not require disproving.

quote:

---

But something with no evidence does not require disproving.

---

Thank you, DL. That sums it up in a nutshell.

Man, that's almost like a lot of double negatives...i'm still digesting that one.

edit:
let's see
Evidence = E
Proof (proving) = P
If not E, then not not P? (there are. 2 not's in the equation)

what about If E then P - would that hold true. If so in which context?

But something with evidence does require proving?

(Edited by ZaddyDog on 04-08-2005 23:52)

E does not imply P, it just doesn't work that way.

If you are to prove something you need a mathematical proof (it all comes down to math in the end). As that is something you can prove. Most of science is based on things that have a ton of evidence, and the amount of evidence we leads to a compelling argument.

So you are correct things with evidence do require proving.

I also have to disagree with your idea that the burden of proof is only on those making a claim, but I will accept that for arguments sake that the burden is on the one making the claim. BUT! There are two claims being made in this case one by each side.

1. There is a god
2. There is no god

It is easy to see that both sides are making claims, and both side have no real scientific evidence. So by your statements, both side need to come to bear with evidence.

Now, DL is the real scientist in this debate, although I am sure he will decline that honor to be argumentative. He simply says, "I don't care." Which is a fine answer and would remove him from the entire debate. That is what most scientists would say about this debate. They would word it better something along the lines of "I have seen no evidence which would validate either claim, but I am not interested in that problem, so lets discuss the topic Z."

quote:

---

there is no reason to disprove something that has no evidence for being true in the first place.

---

Now I will go on, there is no evidence that it is possible to factor numbers in logarithm time, that this is either possible or not possible. But hundreds of thousands if not millions of man hours has gone into the pursuit of this question. There are often lots of reasons to try and disprove something that has no evidence of being true. The reasons about, because it is an interesting problem, because it can make me lots of money, because I could be famous, because it is step 3 in my plan to rule the world. You can always have a reason.

I would put that the proof or disproof of a god has to be up there as one of those problems that could result in many of the above joys happening, along with the possibility of you getting assassinated, but we all take risks. It is a huge problem, and many billions of man hours have gone into that problem, so saying there is no reason to look into the problem is just foolish.

Now you might not find the problem interesting and I am fine with that, but saying that the problem has no reason to be looked at is silly. The burden is not on the person making the claim, the burden is on anyone who finds it an interesting problem.

You are all falling into the "My dads bigger than yours argument" it goes on forever, no one wants to offer up proof because neither of you have any proof.

Back to the prayer issue. I am 100% for prayer. If you believe in it and it helps you, or you think it might help other people then by all means do it. When I have been going though a bad patch it is very nice to hear someone tell me that they are praying for me. That shows me that I am worth them talking to the most important being in their life about, and then asking that being to help me. If that is not a compliment I don't know what is. Even if pray is just a placebo then do it, because any help you can get is good help. I wouldn't knock it for the life of me.

As for all the prayers for the Pope. He died, but I bet those prayers helped a whole lot of people got though a tough time and helped them to deal with his passing. I am sure it worked to help many people. The other aspect is that the prayer brought hundreds of millions of people together for something that was not killing one another. I think that in itself is a great thing. It doesn't have to work like magic to work.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

WarMage said:

E does not imply P, it just doesn't work that way.

---

WM: actually i was just kidding

Warmage - you are missing an extremely important point:

All of the examples you give are things that can be proven or disproven, simply by looing, or by mathematical formulas.

Anything that goes towards proving that there is not a god will be instantly dismissed, because god is intangible, in calcuable, etc.

The reason we cannot disprove god is because those who believe will
a) beleive regardless of evidence or lack thereof
b) simply explain that god is outside of our ability to calculate/measure/comprehend

This is not a scientific experiment, and no normal scientific analogy will hold up.

quote:

---

BUT! There are two claims being made in this case one by each side.

---

Irrelevant.

Someone is claiming something exists. Until something is offered as evidence, there is simply no sense in trying to disprove its existence.

Let me bring back your analogy to help clarify:

Someone says - "hey, I think there is a continent we've never seen off to the west"

This can be proven/disproven by simply travelling west looking for a continent. If it's there, it has been proven. If it is not, it has been disproven. The fact that calcuable, tangible qualifiers such as "to the west" were given makes such experimentation possible.

Someone says "hey there's this intangible thing that can't be seen, heard, measured, felt, or otherwise noticed"

So then what...?

Until something is offered to qualify that statement, there is no direction in which to go to prove or disprove it.

So it is quite natural, and perfectly legitimate to say "no there isn't" and leave it at that.

quote:

---

Now, DL is the real scientist in this debate

---

Not sure where you get this concept. There are many people far more educated and adept in the area of science. I rely more on logic and common sense.

quote:

---

although I am sure he will decline that honor to be argumentative

---

Ok.....whatever

quote:

---

He simply says, "I don't care."

---

From my many kb *(mb even?) worth of posts on the subject, you are quite obvisously talking out your ass when you say this...

quote:

---

Which is a fine answer and would remove him from the entire debate.

---

See above...

quote:

---

no one wants to offer up proof because neither of you have any proof.

---

What exactly should I have proof for?

Again, this is not a mathematical equation that simply needs to be worked to its conclusion. It is not a geographical problem that can be solved by traveling to the location in question.

If I have nothing to disprove, what should I disprove exactly?

^Again, DL formulates in words that which I want to say. Well done.

Dl speaks in volumes what I said in a few short lines.

Clearly, he knows some of you require more detailed explanations.

But he is irrefutable, no matter how much one may attempt to refute.

I agree prayer is more of a meditation technique than anything else and I believe we have untapped resources within which such techinques may well allow some to access and utilize.

I also believe there are several non-religious approaches which have proven the efficacy of such.

It was observed the religious may well not accept any proof which might eventually come to light disproving the existance of their god.

It has also been observed those who disbelieve in such mythology are similarly ham-strung by closed minds.

Speaking only for myself, I have looked for decades for anything which might prove the existance of any god...pick your religion. I have found only the self-serving hand of man.

But if someone is able to provide such proof, I am only too willing to consider it.

Some interesting reading, particularly the section on "Doubt"; http://patduffyhutcheon.com/humanist%20articles/asimov.htm

Also: "But the burden of proof is on the person who claims God exists. You don't believe in Santa Claus, but you can't disprove his existence. The burden of proof is upon those who maintain the claim".

From: http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/asimov2.htm

Also some good reading.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

To me, prayer is kinda like... ' You'd better think long and hard on that young man/lady.'
And if you didn't, you 'prayed' you weren't going to get one 'up longside the head.' =)

Just kidding... my parents never laid a hand on me. Teachers?... well that's a whole different story. =)

quote:

---

People have been talking and thinking about god for thousands of years.
and yet still there is nothing...

---

"Nothing" It depends on how you view the God.


Believers do have "Something" called faith by the light of Spiritual reason. We need not see to believe, we know.

In the supernatural, for believers there is "Something" called a personal relationship with the 1st, 2nd, & third person of God, of which we cannot see, but know.
The human person who lacks the ability to feel and know them, means they never tried to sincerely develop it or they see the God relationship in a different perspective. Usually, they want to see results in the physical, like the big hand of God coming down and wiping away poverty, famine, sickness and disease. For the most part, fallen away believers experienced some hardship and maybe feel God betrayed them. Like look, "I have been a faithfull servant and look whats happened to me". How could God allow this" Or they through study of history of long ago civilizations believe the faith of religions are myths invented to scare humanity into believing. However the way you look at it, the fact remains that we do not base faith on proof. We need no signs, no parting of seas, no great miracles. We believe the great miracle of God is that we are here living in extension of the image of God and sustained in God's handiwork. We believe we are given God's gift of grace to accept freely. We are not commanded and made to accept God in the supernatural, we are given a free will. How nice of God.

Faith cannot be alive without "Prayer". The more we pray the more we know who God is. Like when I first meet someone and I shake their hand and say "Hello, how do you do, my name is Jade T and I am very happy to meet you." Then we happen to like each other. We develop a relationship and by being with this person more and more and in their presence by talking, I am able to know this person better and better till this person becomes my best loving friend. Being in this relationship, I can and decide to take on some of the attributes and mannerisms of this person I admire. Because I am in their presence so much and I value their wisdom and strength, I also begin to act and talk like them. Their ways become my ways. We have a one on one relationship and I receive joy and satisfaction with this person so I long to seek and be with this person all the time. Sounds like a marriage of minds.

I use this analogy because in the same way it is with God. Thru "Prayer" we develop this same kind but more intimate relationship with God . But also in return we receive his spirit of wisdom & grace without no words being said to us. This spiritual relationship surpasses all other physical relationships in which we can feel and touch. We believe in this way can we truly & fully be human in the way God created us for. Without God's spiritual essence, we are like a Oreo cookie without the cream in the middle.

(Edited by jade on 04-11-2005 17:05)

I just want to clairfy, for the record, that the idea of proof in this conversation was brought up by one of the 'beleivers' - that's why the topic came up, not by atheists demanding proof of god.

As for not needing proof, but just 'beleiving' - sure. Problem is, that can apply to anything. If I make myself beleive it is real, then to me it is real. But it still doesn't alter reality and make what I beleive actually real.

It's the type of thing that happens in our world all the time - kids beleive in the easter bunny, santa claus, the tooth fairy, the boogie man. People develop imaginary friends. People really go off the deep end and have interactive conversations with their dogs, or hear a dead fish talking to them, or see the 'virgin' mary in a grilled cheese sandwich and call it a miracle...

Most of these things are instantly relegated to either childish indulgences, or outright insanity.

But people don't even bat an eyelash in telling you that's how it works with god - that you can't know it's there until after you beleive that it is there. You might as well say that we should all hold hands and think happy thoughts (don't forget the pixie dust!) and we'll be flying off to never-never-land =)

But anyway...that's all beside the point, really. I can say with as much certainty and authority that there is no god as you can that there is. And both statements are totally irrelevant. But until there is something more than our imagination and talking to ourselves to show that god is anything different than the tooth fairy or the easter bunny, I'll pass...

I will certainly agree that there are plenty of people who stopped beleiveing because things didn'g go their way, or they're amgry at god, or what have you.

But there are certainly plenty of other reasons.