Proofs that prayer doesn't work.
Offline Unless of course the goal is talking to yourself, prayer doesn't work.
We review the following article at the beginning of show 15 featuring Amanda Bloom. You can download that show for free right here.
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
Published: March 31, 2006
By BENEDICT CAREYStory from New York Times and all over web. Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
Because it is the most scientifically rigorous investigation of whether prayer can heal illness, the study, begun almost a decade ago and involving more than 1,800 patients, has for years been the subject of speculation.
The question has been a contentious one among researchers. Proponents have argued that prayer is perhaps the most deeply human response to disease, and that it may relieve suffering by some mechanism that is not yet understood. Skeptics have contended that studying prayer is a waste of money and that it presupposes supernatural intervention, putting it by definition beyond the reach of science.
At least 10 studies of the effects of prayer have been carried out in the last six years, with mixed results. The new study was intended to overcome flaws in the earlier investigations. The report was scheduled to appear in The American Heart Journal next week, but the journal's publisher released it online yesterday.
In a hurriedly convened news conference, the study's authors, led by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, said that the findings were not the last word on the effects of so-called intercessory prayer. But the results, they said, raised questions about how and whether patients should be told that prayers were being offered for them.
"One conclusion from this is that the role of awareness of prayer should be studied further," said Dr. Charles Bethea, a cardiologist at Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City and a co-author of the study.
Other experts said the study underscored the question of whether prayer was an appropriate subject for scientific study.
"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."
The study cost $2.4 million, and most of the money came from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into spirituality. The government has spent more than $2.3 million on prayer research since 2000.
Dean Marek, a chaplain at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a co-author of the report, said the study said nothing about the power of personal prayer or about prayers for family members and friends.
Working in a large medical center like Mayo, Mr. Marek said, "You hear tons of stories about the power of prayer, and I don't doubt them."
In the study, the researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.
The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.
The researchers asked the members of three congregations St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City ? to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names.
The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."
Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not.
In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for ? 59 percent ? suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain. The authors left open the possibility that this was a chance finding. But they said that being aware of the strangers' prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety.
"It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?" Dr. Bethea said.
The study also found that more patients in the uninformed prayer group 18 percent suffered major complications, like heart attack or stroke, compared with 13 percent in the group that did not receive prayers. In their report, the researchers suggested that this finding might also be a result of chance.
One reason the study was so widely anticipated was that it was led by Dr. Benson, who in his work has emphasized the soothing power of personal prayer and meditation.
At least one earlier study found lower complication rates in patients who received intercessory prayers; others found no difference. A 1997 study at the University of New Mexico, involving 40 alcoholics in rehabilitation, found that the men and women who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse.
The new study was rigorously designed to avoid problems like the ones that came up in the earlier studies. But experts said the study could not overcome perhaps the largest obstacle to prayer study: the unknown amount of prayer each person received from friends, families, and congregations around the world who pray daily for the sick and dying.
Bob Barth, the spiritual director of Silent Unity, the Missouri prayer ministry, said the findings would not affect the ministry's mission.
"A person of faith would say that this study is interesting," Mr. Barth said, "but we've been praying a long time and we've seen prayer work, we know it works, and the research on prayer and spirituality is just getting started."
Here's a youtube video from our friends at godisimaginary.com:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A
Here's a thought from honorary Squad member, the Infidel Guy:
What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already?
1.) Humans can't change God's mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.
3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)
Stop talking to your ceiling, prayer doesn't work.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Science works by attempting to falsify a hypothesis, so there's nothing biased by attempting to rule out a hypothesis.
As long as he used a falsifiable hypothesis, he did not rule out prayer a priori.
This is a false analogy, based on your misunderstanding of the scientific method.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Good.
Please read your own words:
You declare that we can't know that most prayers go unanswered, unless we make reference to a 'being' that possesses perfect knowledge of the situation.
Yet just above, you declared that it WASN'T all that difficult to infer, from what we know of human nature, that most prayers do go unanswered.
Yet you just declared that "god only knows"
So you're contradicting yourself.
Yes, it is.
That is immaterial. What matters if if you bring it up to respond to the majority of prayers - i.e. to make it so as to help solve your quandry.
Which is a no true scotsman fallacy.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I think you need to read it again. In fact, you need to read all of your comments more carefully.
LOL This doesn't make your comments specific to a person, based on evidence! You're still impugning a group!
You're attacking all the posters here, as a whole, without any specific knowledge of most of them! And even worse, you're making a global character attack!
What's worse, you actually think that your argument here works!
Thanks for refuting yourself. You've now conceded, without probably realizing it, that you've done precisely what I accused you of - making an irrational comment.
Now, you only need to figure out that you've refuted yourself.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No, it's precisely the argument given to you. You're about to demonstrate, again, that you have trouble grasping the concept of falsifiability.
No, this would not work, because your addition is a nebulous concept meant to help you hide your beliefs from refutation.
In other words, this is your ad hoc, "no true scotsman fallacy" argument. It's illogical, because you can rule out any prayer that appears to 'fail' as actually being a prayer from a person who does not 'abide in god'
So your version would lead to a non falsifiable hypothesis... there would literally be no way to know if a 'prayer failed' or if a mysterious god simply refused to grant something to a person who didn't 'abide in him'
So no rational person could actually use your 'hypothesis' in an experiment, because it is non falsifiable.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Look up.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
What's so absolutely pathetic about your response is that you might actually believe it.... you use the 'specific' as if specifically impugning a group of people somehow makes your charge specific, i.e. towards one person based on evidence of that one person's behaviors.....
When in reality, your claim is an irrational charge against a group of people you have no experience with.
I do hope you have the courage to just concede to reality here.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
There is no foothold for any 'supernatural' theory , as the concept is oxymornic. Science can only work with naturalistic claims. Supernatural claims only live in the margins of science texts... they are nothing more but arguments from ignorance, usually from the ignorant.
Is that who you get your cosmology from?
So? This only goes against the old concept of the steady state universe.... a theory that few modern cosmologists hold to to begin with.
So how does this support a theistic explanation in any way? How does it lead to the requirement of a supernatural creation?
Answer: it doesn't. A 'supernatural' explanation is simply intellectual surrender... nothing more.
Here's a brief view of what actual cosmologists (and not christian apologists) believe about cosmology:
1) Common misperception: The "big bang" theory is not a 'creation theory', but a description of what occured at planck time, and immediately aftwards:
"Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period - (from the perspective of the big bang - ed.)"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/planck.html
2) There is no reason to hold that there MUST have been a creation point.
According to Penn State physicist Lee Smolin, there are three possible scenarios, not just one:
* [A] There is still a first moment in time, even when quantum mechanics is taken into consideration.
* [B] The singularity is eliminated by some quantum mechanical effect. As a result, when we run the clock back, the universe does not reach a state of infinite density. Something else happens when the universe reaches some very high density that allows time to continue indefinitely into the past.
* [C] Something new and strange and quantum mechanical happens to time, which is neither possibility A or B. For example, perhaps we reach a state where it is no longer appropriate to think that reality is composed of a series of moments that follow each other in a progression, one after another. In this case there is perhaps no singularity, but it may also not make sense to ask what happened before the universe was extremely dense.[6] [7]
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/bigbang.html
One particular explanation of the third option: The theory of Stephen Hawkings holds that the universe is finite, but boundless, without any "beginning point"
http://www.lfrieling.com/univers.html
Another third scenario option:
The Myth of the Beginning of Time
String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state
By Gabriele Veneziano
3) Please don't waste the board's time attempting to apply the first law of thermodynamics - a law describing events in the universe, to the universe itself. This is a fallacy of composition. I'm not saying you have done this, just trying to head off the argument before it appears....
4) While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron).
This would explain the existence of matter.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631
As for the source of the original energy? There are several theories:
1) Edward Tryon has put forth the idea of a vacuum fluctation, which is NOT a violation of physical law, as the original source. Alan Guth's Inflationary Model explains the rapid expansion of this energy.
Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth.
Tryon makes the point that the total sum of positive and negative energy in the universe may well be ZERO, indicating again, that no physical laws are violated by the big bang event.
As Tryon writes: "Im my model, I assume that our present universe did appear out of nowhere 10 to the 10th power years ago. Contrary to the popular belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics.
Source: The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth.
2)
'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory
"The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time."
You might also try:
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html
Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists
Sean M. Carroll, University of Chicago
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Please tell me this was a joke. Please.
Why would a supernatural being rely on contrivance?
Please tell me this was a joke. Please.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Man designed the calendar; a week could just as easily have been 8 days. In fact before there was a calendar, a week did not exit.
What intelligent design?
Prove xianity is true.
Mathematics is true.
But I think you are trying to escape your claim. You posted a link implying that the material there would provide evidence of a god. Go to the link you posted and from that link indicate where there you see evidence of a god.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Precisely, it's totally arbitrary... how is a 'sunday' a 'sunday'? Because we call it sunday. That's it....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
The atheist makes the false assumption that the Bible teaches that anything and everything we pray for will be granted to us. This certainly is not the case, and no biblical scholar, nor theologian - nor apostle in the bible - would've taught such. All of the scripture verses that have been quoted are great: "Ask and you shall receive," "Whatever you ask in my name shall be granted to you," etc.
To pray for something "in Jesus/God's name" does not mean you have to say, "in Jesus' name" at the end. Nor does it simply mean that you are attributing the power of prayers coming true to God. Actually, it means to pray in the same will of God. In Matthew 6 Jesus taught the greatest example of praying: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." And later on in Matt. 26:39 he prays, "Yet not as I will, but as you will." 1 John 5:14 says it best: "If we ask anything according to his will, he hears us." Therefore, the Biblical teaching is that when we are in the family of God, our will is slowly conformed to his. Hence, the things that we pray for that are in his will, shall come to pass. But if we ask of something not in his will, it shall not.
Now, if the atheist's problem is with prayers not coming true, they cannot be mad at God, they can only be mad at themselves for not submitting to Christ's Lordship
and being conformed to his will.
Prove there’s a god.
Prove there’s a god.
Prove there’s a god.
Do you understand English?
You can't.
Isn't that your problem?
Your god is imaginary.
You are no different than someone who claims they can walk through walls.
The bible is a psychotic joke!
jesus never existed.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Well, of course I can prove there is a God. I have numerous evidences. However, it's safe to assume that your mind is so closed and set on your presuppositions that you will deny every single one. It certainly requires a large amount of faith for you to deny such obvious truths. This is why I am not an atheist. I don't have as much faith as you.
If you want someone to present evidence of God or Jesus' existence, similar to submitting evidence in a courtroom, then I'm afraid that will never work since you have made yourself the Judge and Jury.
I really was amazed at your intelligent and thought-provoking response. Is that all you have, or would you like to add some more insulting comments to clutter up this thread?
I'm waiting.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Ding ding ding... tell em what he's won Todangst. Oh no wait... I'll do it, you've won the theistic projection of the day award. CONGRATS!!
Please keep in mind my above comment is simply calling it as I see it. It's no more insulting than you claiming those of us who have no faith, are full of faith. I thought it important to mention as you find other people merely calling it as they see it, insulting.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
So... when you pray for God to do what he would do anyway, then it will come to pass... but if you pray for something God wasn't going to do, then it won't come to pass.
In other words - Prayer is completely useless even if God existis. Thanks for clearing that up.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
Then I guess we should also accept this as evidence for the existence of other Gods - for which we have named weekdays.
Tiw - Tuesday
Woden - Wednesday
Thor - Thursday
Freya - Friday
And of course, Sunday was named "SUN"day because that was the day used by the sun worshipping religions.
Looks like the week can prove the existence of several gods.
Intelligent design, like vestigial organs, birth defects, and a universe where 99.9999...% is completely fatal for the existence of humans.
This has yet to be established.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
You're right... you've repeated your "no true scotsman" fallacy over and over again.
Perhaps you're just not familiar with the fallacy - perhaps it's honest ignorance on your part. If so, let me explain:
The bottom line of the "no true scotsman" fallacy is that you determine the validity of something after the fact.
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Now lets look at YOUR version.
Argument: "No prayer goes unanswered."
Reply: "Millions of prayers go unanswered every day."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true prayer goes unanswered."
You are DEFINATELY using the "no true scotsman fallacy.
Interesting... You deny that you're using the "no true scotsman" fallacy, but when I word your argument AS the fallacy - you agree with it.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply were not familiar enough with the fallacy to recognize it.
Billions of Muslims believe the world is undeniably created by Allah. Millions of ancients believe the world was undeniably created by Zeus. My kitchen chair told me it created the universe - what better proof can you get?
Frankly, it is not undeniable that the universe was created by ANY God in general - let alone the Christian God specifically. In fact, it is undeniable that the universe was NOT created as described in the Bible.
Ouch - I must have struck a cord for you to sink to name calling, and character assassinations. I guess you're unhappy because I pointed out that other Gods (including my kitchen chair) answer prayers at the same predictable ratio as Yahweh.
The only thing you've pointed out scripturally is that the Bible disagrees with itself. You won't get any argument from me on that.
I don't need to be an "acrid, arrogant atheist zealot" to realize prayer doesn't work. You yourself even admitted most prayers fail. This will continue to be true regardless of my attitude or personality. Your argument is nothing greater than a "no true scotsman" fallacy, and an argument from incredulity. - Just because a few prayers appear to be answered doesn't mean an omnipotent God altered the laws of nature to do as someone who "abides in him" pleaded. Statistically, we would expect a small percentage of prayers to be effective - simply by coincidence. Oddly, your God only answers prayers according to this predictable ratio.
But there is no way to determine whether your prayer is missing "X" until AFTER THE FACT. Thus - a "no true scotsman" fallacy.
Wow... You just called every Christian on Earth a hypocrite. I can garauntee there is not a single Christian who has had EVERY one of his/her prayers answered.
Every woman who pleads to God to heal her child of the cancer which is ripping his body appart - HYPOCRITE.
Every starving mother who pleads to God for food so she can feed her starving children. - HYPOCRITE.
You live in a very ugly world. I feel sorry for you. I wouldn't be happy if I thought so little of my fellow man.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
wrong.
God predestines not only the end, but also the means by which those ends are fulfilled.
prayer is that means.
therefore, it is not useless. in fact, it is vital.
The existence of God is proven by the existence of logical absolutes. Christianity states that God is absolute and the standard of truth. The laws of logic were never created, they have eternally existed since they are the reflections of his nature.
1. God is transcendent; that is, He is beyond the material universe being its creator.
2. God has originated the laws of logic because they are a reflection of His nature.
3. Therefore, the laws of logic are absolute.
4. They are absolute because there is an absolute God.
This is how the Christian accounts for the existence of logical absolutes. They can only exist because a God exists. However, the atheist cannot account for logic's existence, and he must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to rationally argue.
Bullshit.
First of all, you have not even defined "logical absolute," so I'm not even sure what you mean. But even if I were to grant taht logical absolutes exist, this in no way requires a god.
Logic is a linguistic tool we use to describe how we understand the world. taht is, logic is not something that exists outside of thinkers. When i say it is a description, I mean to say that it is literally only a bunch of words held together by semantics and language games. The rules that you think underlie them are simply created by the rules that we observe as the behavior of nature.
For example;
A=A
This is true because it must be, so I assume this is what you mean by a logical absolute? However, the phrase itself is a mere lignuistic redundancy, and has no distinction from simply saying "A" without the "=" or the other "A," right?
Further, your premises above are rediculous. let's look at them;
This is your premise? This is a website dedicated to show that God doe snot exist. Ina round-about way in trying to show God exists, you sneak in this premise to show that logical absolutes exist, thinking that since we'll agree that logical absolutes exist we must accept this premise? Please....
Another unsupported assumption.
You can't conclude this because you cannot simply define this transcendent god into existence then use it to prove your point. You can't conclude this because the first two premises are not supported by anything.
Does not follow.
I think you were trying to say something like this;
1) The fundamental laws of logic exist and are absolute.
2) Absolutes need a basis to exist
3) absolutes are not created by finite beings
4) laws of logic need an absolute being to exist
5) Therefore, an absolute being (we'll call it "God") exists
But even this fails. Even if we accept 1), #2 is not supported. Why can't the laws of logic simply be the result of how real physical events interact, and therefore become the basis of our rational thinking because our brains, being the seat of thought, and physical things? That seems like the parsimonious explanation, not some absolute logic fairy which would itself need further explanation.
That is, the idea that logic needs a creator, therefore god, fails for the same reason that the cosmological argument fails; it doe snot explain how the creator came to be. To attribute this exception to needing a creator to god and not logic itself is biased and arbitrary.
But you'll have to wait for my up-coming refutation of the cosmological/kalam argument (to be published here and elsewhere soon) to get the rest of that point.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Let me make sure I understand you correctly. (I'll ignore the whole "predestination" vs. "free-will" argument for now.)
You're saying God uses prayer as a means to acheive certain ends. Alright, so if someone were NOT to pray, then the end which God had predestined would NOT come to pass - because the means did not come to pass... thereby thwarting the will of God.
In otherwords: You can NOT change the will of God by praying - but you CAN by NOT praying.
Not to mention, why would God use prayer as a means anyway? Is he sitting up in Heaven looking down on us saying: "I could save that child from being raped and tortured, but I want her to ask for my help first... then I'll think about it."
If you saw a man drowning, would you wait for him to call out for you before you jumped in to save him? Would you stand by the side of the river and watch him drown if he didn't cry out to you specificlly? (Using your name specifically?)
If you offer help wherever you can without demanding recognition, or requiring that they ask for help first - then you are a better man than your God.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
by logical absolutes i mean that the rules of logic are absolute. the law of non-contradiction, for example, is truth, it has always been truth, and it always will be truth. it is objective.
are you saying that logic is derived from our observations of nature? if so, you are confusing the mind with the universe. we discover the laws of physics by observing things around us, not the laws of logic.
the following is taken from a paper that I found awhile ago that explains this subject best:
"We do not see in nature that something is both itself and not itself at the same time. Why? Because we can only observe a phenomena that exists, not one that does not exist. If something is not itself, then it doesn't exist. How then can the property of that non-existent thing be observed? It cannot. Therefore, we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought.
Or, where do we observe in nature that something cannot bring itself into existence if it does not already exist?
You cannot make an observation about how something does not occur if it does not exist. You would be, in essence, observing nothing at all and how can any laws of logic be applied to or derived from observing nothing at all?
The laws of logic are conceptual realities. They only exist in the mind and they do not describe physical behavior of things since behavior is action and laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth.
In other words, laws of logic are not actions. They are statements about conceptual patterns of thought. Though one could say that a law of physics (i.e., the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence) is a statement which is conceptual, it is a statement that describes actual physical and observable behavior. But, logical absolutes are not observable and do not describe behavior or actions of things since they reside completely in the mind."
Please, tell me how you account for the existence of laws of logic. If you say they are not absolute, then no logical arguments for or against the existence of God can be raised and the atheist has nothing to work with. Nor could logic ever be used to prove or disprove anything.
Also, please remember that I never said logic needs a creator. Logic has always existed. It was never created.
This role-play between "prayerful" and "prayerless" is an example from John Piper's website:
Prayerless: I understand that you believe in the
providence of God. Is that right?
Prayerful: Yes.
Prayerless: Does that mean you believe, like the Heidelberg Catechism says, that nothing comes about by chance but only by God's design and plan?
Prayerful: Yes, I believe that's what the Bible teaches.
Prayerless: Then why do you pray?
Prayerful: I don't see the problem. Why shouldn't we pray?
Prayerless: Well, if God ordains and controls everything, then what he plans from of old will come to pass, right?
Prayerful: Yes.
Prayerless: So it's going to come to pass whether
you pray or not, right.
Prayerful: That depends on whether God ordained for it to come to pass in answer to prayer. If God predestined that something happen in answer to prayer, it won't happen without prayer.
Prayerless: Wait a minute, this is confusing. Are you saying that every answer to prayer is predestined or not?
Prayerful: Yes, it is. It's predestined as an answer to prayer.
Prayerless: So if the prayer doesn't happen, the answer
doesn't happen?
Prayerful: That's right.
Prayerless: So the event is contingent on our praying
for it to happen?
Prayerful: Yes. I take it that by contingent you mean prayer is a real reason that the event happens, and without the prayer the event would not happen.
Prayerless: Yes that's what I mean. But how can an event be contingent on my prayer and still be eternally fixed and predestined by God?
Prayerful: Because your prayer is as fixed as
the predestined answer.
Prayerless: Explain.
Prayerful: It's not complicated. God providentially ordains all events. God never ordains an event without a cause. The cause is also an event. Therefore, the cause is also foreordained. So you cannot say that the event will happen if the cause doesn't because God has ordained otherwise. The event will happen if the cause happens.
Prayerless: So what you are saying is that answers to prayer are always ordained as effects of prayer which is one of the causes, and that God predestined the answer only as an effect of the cause.
Prayerful: That's right. And since both the cause and the effect are ordained together you can't say that the effect will happen even if the cause doesn't because God doesn't ordain effects without causes.
Prayerless: Can you give some illustrations?
Prayerful: Sure. If God predestines that I die of a bullet wound, then I will not die if no bullet is fired. If God predestines that I be healed by surgery, then if there is no surgery, I will not be healed. If God predestines heat to fill my home by fire in the furnace, then if there is no fire, there will be no heat. Would you say, "Since God predestines that the sun be bright, it will be bright whether there is fire in the sun or not"?
Prayerless: No.
Prayerful: I agree. Why not?
Prayerless: Because the brightness of the sun
comes from the fire.
Prayerful: Right. That's the way I think about the answers to prayer. They are the brightness, and prayer is the fire. God has established the universe so that in larger measure it runs by prayer, the same way he has established brightness so that in larger measure it happens by fire. Doesn't that make sense?
Prayerless: I think it does.
Prayerful: Then let's stop thinking up problems and go with what the Scriptures say. Ask and you will receive. You have not because you ask not.
Logic is derived via our observations through our perceptual processes. Kant talked about the "categories" of thought, and what he means is that when we take in information from the world, we process it through some categories of thought that organize them into cohesive chunks of information. Daniel C. Dennett's work (among others') expands on this idea when he talks about how when we look at the world, we construct pieces out of it in ways that do not always conform to what is really there. Optical illusions are an example.
Part of this process is to structure events,whether they be temporal, spatial, or conceptual abstractions, into what we call "logical" ways. Therefore, when we apply the information we get and try to make it cohere with the rest of the information we have, we must do so according to the rules of how we take in information. We don't have a choice in this, the information as proccessed by the brain is all the brain has to work with.
Our anthropomorphization of the noumenal world (the world outside of our perception--the world "in itself") as including these logiacl structures is presumptive. Yes, the world functions according to certain rules, but the rules are generated by our brains in an attempt to explain them. There is literally no way to see the world outside of these structures imposed on thought, because it is the brain's way of functioning and it is only the brain we have to think with.
I'm not saying that structure does not exist outside of our thinking it, as many postmodern thinkers seem to say. I'm saying that the very idea of structure, logic, and reason are, by definition, products of the brain
I am not confusing the world with the mind, I'm saying that everything we have ever thought, are thinking now, and ever will think is the mind. What lies outside of that mind is accessible through an imposing set of perceptual processes in our brain. These processes function accordning to rules of how matter interacts. This is the basis of logic, reasoning, etc--the basis of all thought.
I'm not saying that the law of non-contradiction is literally observed from the world around us in this way. So yes, we do discover them by thought, but thought is the result of our observation of our own internal nature. Thought is not some spiritual entity, it is a physical process that we observe from the inside. That is why logic is the result of observation of nature--we are natural beings and thinking is a natural process.
No, we infer this. This is not to say that we infer it correctly, but it is an inference.
If I were claiming what it looks like you think I am claiming, you're criticism would be fine. But I'm not claiming any such thing.
I cannot observe something that does not exist, but I can notice that something that, being named and described by others, I haven't seen it or detected it in any way. This is, of course, not to say it does not exist; it merely says I haven't seen it or seen evidence of it.
Logic is not applied to seeing nothing, it is applied to what we do see and what that says about the things that people claim are there (yet we don't see them.
A is not not-A not because we see not-A, but because of A's unique quality of being A, it cannot be otherwise, including the lack of itself. I assume you understand the logic, but I don't think that you understand that your understanding of the logic is based upon your understanding of your own brain and how you think. It's really very intimate self-knowledge.
Ah, but Truth is the ultimate correct decription of all actions, is it not?
Statements are not actions? (I'm being cute here, not equivocating)
Things that reside in the mind are processes. processes are actions (I prefer to call them "events" or "actual entities," but mostly because I have a certain affinity for the metaphysical language of Alfred North Whitehead).
Now, if you want to claim that logic is information and begin to talk about information theory, that's a similar, yet technically different, discussion. Information does not exist without a medium for storage. These mediums involve processes, which are also actions.
I don't know if they are absolute or not. They certainly seem to be, and are quite useful. I think I already covered how they come to be above.
noted
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
And I am supposed to believe you? Demonstrate this proof of yours.
How do logical absolutes prove the existence of a god?
Prove xianity has proof that god is absolute and is the standard of truth. Of course you will have to define ‘standard’ of truth. EDIT: You also need to define "logical absolutes".
god’s nature seems to be incoherent.
1 if god is beyond material, how is it that god can interact with material and how would you know? But you said earlier that logic exists only in the mind, so how would your first premise even apply to material?
2 if god existed before logic, how was god able to create logic without having any logic until god created it?
3 1 and 2 are invalid hence number 3 is inconclusive.
4 same as number 3, also you haven’t proved the existence of a god let alone that god is absolute.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
So you agree with me, you can change what God predestined by NOT praying, but you can't change God's will by praying. (It would've been much easier for you to have just said yes.)
The world has been around for a very long time, on this I'm sure you'll agree. If God exists, then people have been going against his will for a very long time, I'm sure you'll also agree with this. If God had a predestined series of events, and people have gone against that series of events from a very early time, then by now everything God had predestined would be lost - events X, Y, and Z can't happen if not preceeded by events A - W.
One missed prayer, one missed event, would throw off everything God had predestined from that moment forward. Every person with whom this infidel interacted would be affected.
The whole "plan" would be so muddled by this point, that any prayer would be completely useless. The other missed prayers, and missed answers would've screwed up everything to such a degree that the world couldn't exist in any real way as God predestined it to.
(Of course, you could answer this by saying God predestined the missed prayers too... but that just means free-will doesn't exist, and God is responsible for every decision ever made - including the violent and cruel ones.)
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
If logic doesn't need a creator, then why do natural laws? What are natural laws but observations we make about the world around us?
If such things as the law of non-contradiction can exist without a creator, then why can't the weight of an electron be just as eternal?
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
Thats the thing, though. God predestines the prayers! There aren't any "missed" prayers.
So, no, God never predestined missed prayers - there havent ever been any! Where are you getting this idea of 'missed prayers'?
It is true that we are to pray for God's will to be accomplished. It is the means by which he brings forth the end result. This obviously leaves the possibility that some of our prayers may not be in line with God's will and he will not hear them/answer them. nevertheless, we are still commanded to pray and should pray when we feel so obliged because we don't know what God's will is!
It's like preaching. Not everyone will answer the call of the gospel. but we are still commanded to preach the gospel to ALL people, because we don't know who will accept it and who wont. Only God does, and preaching leads to that person's conversion. its the same with prayer. Not every prayer will be answered, but we are still commanded to pray because we don't know what is God's will and what isnt. Only he does.
Are you still thinking about your answer to question number one? It's just yes or no.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Then there is no free-will, no liberty. If God predestined an event, and the action he put forth to bring about the event is a prayer from me - that prayer will never happen, thus the predestined action will never take place... If you believe humankind has any say in their own actions, then you'll admit this must've happened thousands of times throughout history.
That's my point. They're not predestined, therefore they interrupt the hypothetical pre-destined path... making ALL future pre-destined events obsolete.
Since - by your own admission - God did not predestine a single missed prayer, his plan must be so far off course that the predestined outcome is no longer even a probability.
By your own admission - you don't know God's will - thus, you don't know when you have been predestined to pray, or for exactly what you've been predestined to pray for at any given time. Therefore, it's highly likely that even you have missed a predestined prayer or two, or have not offered the prayer God wanted you too - either one would have the same effect. Missing a prayer, or praying for the wrong thing would prevent God's will from being accomplished - thus throwing his predestined plan out the window.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See
Really. What exactly should a prayer be like? Which particular way of praying do you personally see results from, 20vturbo?
Would the 'way' that the prayer was said have an impact upon the results? Well shucks. Throw out all of those prayers done for the control group of the sick people that didn't get better because the prayers weren't 'done' correctly.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
It didn't presuppose anything, in fact I don't recall atheism being brought up at any time during the video.
Actually it did, you just weren't paying attention. The Bible states you WILL get whatever you ask of God. This was cited chapter and verse in the video. So, according to the Bible, praying for things is not "testing" God, but rather doing what the Bible says is okay to do.
Saying that we are "testing" God is another excuse - and by excuse I mean (and the video means) that you are simply pressuming to know the will of God (That you think that God doesn't want to be tested). It also proves that you KNOW the prayers aren't answered, and are trying to hold on to your faith for dear life in an attempt to persuade yourself that this MUST be the reason why God did not answer the prayers.
The movie did a brilliant job of showing this, I caught it, but you didn't. Or maybe you did and just ignored it?
Don't forget, your Savior also stated that we can move mountains with faith and prayer. I have yet to see that happen. So again, how is it testing God when he condones it himself? Stop trying to rationalize away the reality of the situation. In fact, by making up excuses you are dodging the truth.
What should it be exactly?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
I don't really want to interfere with this guys post but basically I believe in what the Catholic Church teaches on prayer. I'm sure there will be an opportunity to discuss in the other thread when I get a chance to read it all.
Yes at this point the discussion has been moved to the prayer thread.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Very possible I missed something, I will watch it again. And continue the discussion in the other thread.
It seemed to presuppose atheism. It didn't address the problems that it brought up, such as "you shouldn't test God." They also left out all the meat of what a prayer should be in the first place.
I've seen you and a few others spit out this complaint...but what do you think it means?
How does the research presuppose atheism and what deleterious effect can this 'presupposition' even have?
I bet you can't even figure out a way to respond...
Where does the the bible state that one shouldn't 'test god' with prayers, and how exactly can anyone 'test' something omnipotent?
The next complaint coming from theists is their wankfest over there being a multitude of ways to pray, and that intercessory prayer is only one way... what a load of bullshit....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I believe that prayer is supposed to brings us closer to God and his will. I don't claim to know all of the reasons why God says "no" to prayers.
This assumes that we know better than God, which if you believe in God wouldn't make sense.
Fair enough. Look forward to your reply.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Let me be clear, these are all things that I believe and will gladly explain (although it may take a bit to answer all of you). I am completely open to conversion (I would love to forget about God and everything I have learned to be able to sleep in my own darn house!).....I love science, I believe in evolution ect, ect. and I am intrigued by String Theory at the moment. I am not trying to start fights with anyone. Just searching
I believe you, but also know we've answered the questions you are posing dozens (if not hundreds) of times before, so we may be quick on the draw. Please don't take blunt comments as rude or ad hominems. I hope you see where we are coming from.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
definitely! I just won't be able to get to all the questions until I get out of work.
this is bullshit... and i know this without even reading this stuff...(ive read a lot of crap u ppl posted..) fine... lets assume this test/ experiment proves your point... lets!!... then another equally "scientific" experiment proves the effectiveness of mass meditation, or proves our cognitivity can influence physical reality (water) (http://www.whatthebleep.com/crystals/) which would mean the same science u circle-jerk on just shafted you... very good job of being short sighted and selective...
"you dont need to be a christian to get into heaven, and the bible is not a manual on telling others how to live their lives"
is ALL id want to tell a christian...
for some reason you guys seem to get stuck on the least interesting parts of the "controversy"... the bible is encrypted wisdom.... stop treating it like misspellings in a phonebook...
and stop hurting atheism goddamnit
adamryan / ryanadam good job...
peace...out
You can't "hurt" atheism, atheism is simply what you're left with when you abandon theism.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
kristoffer,
You have fallen, hook, line and sinker for psuedoscience.
http://skepdic.com/ramtha.html
"Emoto claims to have proven that thoughts are so powerful they can change the structure of water. His “experiments” consist of taping written words to glasses of water. The next day beautiful crystals appear on jars with words like “love.” We are not told that these are actually ice crystals. In his book, Messages from Water, Emoto claims that water can understand every language in the world, and all their emotional and metaphoric nuances, by picking up on the linguistic vibrations. Water tells us that classical music is good and heavy metal is bad. Water can educate us as to whether religious and political figures are good or bad people. Water is so perceptive that, when played a recording of Elvis singing “Heartbreak Hotel,” the water crystal split into two crystals in sympathy."
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca
If you can't back up anything you asserted, if you can't even demonstrate that you understand what it means without requiring 'more time', then how can you be taken seriously?
When I assert something, and get challenged to back it up, I don't need time to respond.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
It assumes that God is bound by us, it assumes that you can test God by praying for something and if it doesnt happen the way that the we want it to happen then it was not answered.
I guess this comes down to if you want to take the bible 100% literal or if you want to use the logic we have been given to study the full message. (which by the way I am just starting to try to learn... I dont think I have the wisdom or knowledge to completely answer all of your questions....but I will try my best)
IMO Jesus made it pretty clear that we should not test God. Just because the outcome of the prayer is not what we wanted doesn't mean that the prayer was not answered.
This again boils down to should we take the bible 100% literal.
I am not denying the experiment shown in the video, I agree that praying in the way that was portraied in the video has the same effect as wishing to the horseshoe.
In my opinion the point of prayer is to grow closer to God through communication, It is to learn more about Gods nature and to trust in God.
I think it means that the video assumes that God is bound by our understanding and that would make God not God, which would mean that there is no God
It says that we should test God, can you expand on what the difference is if it is done with prayers?
Because there are more of you asking questions, I was at work, and I am not on the computer alot.