Has prayer ever worked for you?

[Cerpin Taxt]

I thought being condescending was against this forum's rules. I realize you think your position is superior. Everyone does.

Hilarious. He couldn't understand the first argument formulated for adults, so when I have to dumb down the 2nd version, now I'm being "condescending." That's just perfect.

Note the distinct lack of rebuttal or counter-argument whatsoever.

I stopped reading when I realized that you couldn't behave.

That's convenient.

 

[Paul98]

So I am still waiting for the argument to believe in god, or any random claim with no evidence backing it up.

 

[smackababy]

I prayed this thread would continue: I'll let you come to your own conclusions of whether it worked or not.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So I am still waiting for the argument to believe in god, or any random claim with no evidence backing it up.

Who said you should do that?

 

[shadow9d9]

Hilarious. He couldn't understand the first argument formulated for adults, so when I have to dumb down the 2nd version, now I'm being "condescending." That's just perfect.

Note the distinct lack of rebuttal or counter-argument whatsoever.



That's convenient.

That is twice now.

 

[Timorous]

Paul, it appears that you were conflating rationality with logic in that back and forth with Cerpin.

Just because a belief in God can be logical does not make it rational. it is irrational to believe in something without evidence, and there is no evidence for God.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Paul, it appears that you were conflating rationality with logic in that back and forth with Cerpin.

Just because a belief in God can be logical does not make it rational. it is irrational to believe in something without evidence, and there is no evidence for God.

I think what Cerpin is trying to point out is that a system of beliefs can have an internal consistency (i.e. no obvious contradictions) given its assumptions that makes it "logical". This is apart from whether or not it's rational to accept the assumptions required for that system of beliefs.

I don't agree that it is irrational to believe in something without evidence. As an example, I'd say it's not irrational to believe in something supernatural working through the so-called laws of science to make the universe happen.

What is irrational is to believe in something where there is substitive evidence against it. As examples, the biblical accounts of a seven-day creation and the worldwide flood.

My two cents...

 

[Timorous]

I think what Cerpin is trying to point out is that a system of beliefs can have an internal consistency (i.e. no obvious contradictions) given its assumptions that makes it "logical". This is apart from whether or not it's rational to accept the assumptions required for that system of beliefs.

Exactly, something can be logically consistent but also irrational at the same time. Just because an argument is logical it does not automatically imply that said argument is rational. From what I read that is what Cerpin was saying and Paul seemed to be evaluating the rationality of the argument on top of the logic and disagreeing with Cerpin.

You do need to evaluate both the Logic and the Rationality of an argument to see if it stands up but that takes two separate operations and that is how I interpreted what Cerpin was saying.

(of course either party can correct me if I am wrong in here)

I don't agree that it is irrational to believe in something without evidence. As an example, I'd say it's not irrational to believe in something supernatural working through the so-called laws of science to make the universe happen.

I find the term supernatural to be redundant because if it exists as part of the universe then it is part of nature regardless of weather we can detect or observe it. If it does not exist as part of the universe then how are we going to ever detect or observe it anyway? If we ever could detect or observe the supernatural it would just mean that our previous definition of nature was incomplete and we need to include this new thing we have just discovered.

If you have no evidence to back up your belief than it is an irrational belief. The person who says for certain that no gods exist at all is just as irrational as the person who says for certain that god(s) do exist. The only rational belief is to say that you do not know and give it a probability based on evidence and for me that points to a very low probability.

 

[Paul98]

Exactly, something can be logically consistent but also irrational at the same time. Just because an argument is logical it does not automatically imply that said argument is rational. From what I read that is what Cerpin was saying and Paul seemed to be evaluating the rationality of the argument on top of the logic and disagreeing with Cerpin.

You do need to evaluate both the Logic and the Rationality of an argument to see if it stands up but that takes two separate operations and that is how I interpreted what Cerpin was saying.

(of course either party can correct me if I am wrong in here)

The point I guess I have been trying to get at is that a specific "argument" can be logically consistent. But this isn't the same as it being logical to believe in, the reason being it will be logically inconsistent with what we know to be reality. Thus the belief being illogical.

Such as the example given earlier as "The sky is red" may be self consistent, but would be illogical to believe is true since it is logically inconsistent with what we know to be true.

I find that we are even talking about this just stupid, I mean really disagreement over a phrase?

I find the term supernatural to be redundant because if it exists as part of the universe then it is part of nature regardless of weather we can detect or observe it. If it does not exist as part of the universe then how are we going to ever detect or observe it anyway? If we ever could detect or observe the supernatural it would just mean that our previous definition of nature was incomplete and we need to include this new thing we have just discovered.

If you have no evidence to back up your belief than it is an irrational belief. The person who says for certain that no gods exist at all is just as irrational as the person who says for certain that god(s) do exist. The only rational belief is to say that you do not know and give it a probability based on evidence and for me that points to a very low probability.

I agree 100% with this.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The point I guess I have been trying to get at is that a specific "argument" can be logically consistent. But this isn't the same as it being logical to believe in, the reason being it will be logically inconsistent with what we know to be reality. Thus the belief being illogical.

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Such as the example given earlier as "The sky is red" may be self consistent, but would be illogical to believe is true since it is logically inconsistent with what we know to be true.

No. Logic has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. Logic deals with language, and language only. You will never be able to determine true facts about reality from pure logic.

I find that we are even talking about this just stupid, I mean really disagreement over a phrase?

Your usage indicates a wrongheaded idea of the meaning and function of logic.

 

[Paul98]

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


No. Logic has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. Logic deals with language, and language only. You will never be able to determine true facts about reality from pure logic.



Your usage indicates a wrongheaded idea of the meaning and function of logic.

It is the logical consistency of a statement with reality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It is the logical consistency of a statement with reality.

No, it isn't. What part of "(A or ~A) = true" is "logically consistent with reality"?

 

[Paul98]

No, it isn't. What part of "(A or ~A) = true" is "logically consistent with reality"?

depends on what you define A to be.

Let me try to explain this another way. Lets say you have a logically consistent argument. Now add a statement which is logically inconsistent with the other statements. With this new statement is the argument now illogical?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

depends on what you define A to be.

No, it doesn't. It's a true statement no matter what A stand for, which is precisely why it has nothing to do with reality.

Let me try to explain this another way. Lets say you have a logically consistent argument. Now add a statement which is logically inconsistent with the other statements. With this new statement is the argument now illogical?

A logical argument is a "finished product," so what you describe doesn't make any sense. A logically valid argument terminates in a logically valid conclusion. You don't just "add a statement," and suddenly change the validity of the argument. The statement could be inconsistent with the conclusion or one of the premises, but the purpose of a logical argument of valid form is to guarantee the truth of the conclusion when given the truth of the premises.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I find the term supernatural to be redundant because if it exists as part of the universe then it is part of nature regardless of weather we can detect or observe it. If it does not exist as part of the universe then how are we going to ever detect or observe it anyway? If we ever could detect or observe the supernatural it would just mean that our previous definition of nature was incomplete and we need to include this new thing we have just discovered.

If you have no evidence to back up your belief than it is an irrational belief. The person who says for certain that no gods exist at all is just as irrational as the person who says for certain that god(s) do exist. The only rational belief is to say that you do not know and give it a probability based on evidence and for me that points to a very low probability.

The term supernatural would be redundant using your definition (which seems to equate supernatural with natural), however the Webster definition is:

"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil."
​

Like it or not, I think you need to be open to the possibility of the supernatural.

It's certainly possible (by definition) that a supernatural could exist and never be observable or detectible by us. You could then logically argue that its existence is irrelevant either way, but should also admit it's not provable either way because there is no evidence supporting either possibility. I don't think you can assign meaningful probabilities without evidence either. I suggest that in this case it's equally rational to believe in the existence and nonexistence of a supernatural.

The more interesting possibility is that a supernatural might make its presence know through "miracles" that we can detect or observe which defy explanation using the universe's otherwise predictable natural laws. This is what most religions claim to be the case. Unambiguous evidence of miracles would be powerful support for the existence of a supernatural (without necessarily revealing much of its nature). If we had such evidence, belief in a supernatural would certainly be rational and stubborn disbelief would be irrational.

To my knowledge, no unambiguous evidence of miracles has ever been produced. Biblical accounts and personal conversations with god don't come anywhere close; people who believe based on just these claims are IMHO irrational.

I can't ignore the possibility, however, that miracles might still happen. That's why I'm a skeptical agnostic.

 

[justoh]

No. Logic has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. Logic deals with language, and language only. You will never be able to determine true facts about reality from pure logic.

Skin gets wet (wiping brow). Wet comes out through holes. New fact revealed through deduction: wet skin has holes. Even if you can't see them, you know they must be there, logically. Or what am i not getting? I didn't read the whole thread. What's pure logic?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What's pure logic?

Mathematics.

 

[Timorous]

The term supernatural would be redundant using your definition (which seems to equate supernatural with natural), however the Webster definition is:

"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil."
​

Like it or not, I think you need to be open to the possibility of the supernatural.

It's certainly possible (by definition) that a supernatural could exist and never be observable or detectible by us. You could then logically argue that its existence is irrelevant either way, but should also admit it's not provable either way because there is no evidence supporting either possibility. I don't think you can assign meaningful probabilities without evidence either. I suggest that in this case it's equally rational to believe in the existence and nonexistence of a supernatural.

I agree with this and I would argue that a supernatural event we cannot detect in any way is irrelevant. While your last sentence here is perfectly valid I would rate the level of rationality to believe, or ardently deny the existence of the supernatural to be 0. Your way of putting it is glass half full rather than saying the belief/denial is equally irrational which would be a glass half empty way of putting it.

The more interesting possibility is that a supernatural might make its presence know through "miracles" that we can detect or observe which defy explanation using the universe's otherwise predictable natural laws. This is what most religions claim to be the case. Unambiguous evidence of miracles would be powerful support for the existence of a supernatural (without necessarily revealing much of its nature). If we had such evidence, belief in a supernatural would certainly be rational and stubborn disbelief would be irrational.

To my knowledge, no unambiguous evidence of miracles has ever been produced. Biblical accounts and personal conversations with god don't come anywhere close; people who believe based on just these claims are IMHO irrational.

I can't ignore the possibility, however, that miracles might still happen. That's why I'm a skeptical agnostic.

The supernatural would defiantly have to contradict the natural laws for me to even consider calling it such, and even then it could very easily be down to lack of understanding. I would still say that said evidence would just put the supernatural within the remit of science and as such it just means our idea of what is natural needs expanding to include this new discovery, even if we cannot really fathom it.

You could call Dark Matter unambiguous evidence of a supernatural miracle, at our current level of understanding. Our models predict the universe to be X but really it is Y, we explain the gap with Dark Matter and are currently trying to find direct observable evidence of its existence so we can figure out what it actually is.

That to me is the problem with a claim of a supernatural miracle, for it to be valid it supposes that our understanding of the natural world is perfect, and our understanding is far from perfect so why chalk any event of that nature to the supernatural? I would consider someone calling an event supernatural to be highly arrogant because our understanding of nature is just so incomplete.

 

[ThinClient]

Would've been nice if something good happened, but it didn't.

And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

Matthew 21:21-22 NAS

I guess that bit isn't true. Sorry for your loss. Hopefully future ... inevitable events ... will encourage you and others to try something other than wishful thinking. There is a LOT of energy spent praying that could be spent doing something that actually works (obviously not in a dire situation where an educated professional is necessary or anything) or something that benefits or comforts the survivors in a more tangible way.

 

[AViking]

Prayer is subject to bad logic.

1. You pray everyday for 30 years and never get them answered but one day you pray for your dog to not die that night and when he's alive in the morning you credit god for answering your prayers. What about the 11,000 times your prayers went unanswered? What about the fact that you could have flipped a coin?

2. You pray to win the lottery and win. You credit god when in fact plain and simple statistics and probability can explain your win.

So has prayer ever worked for me? No. I don't know. I don't care. There's no way to confirm or deny it. At the end of the day prayer is just a method for me to collect my thoughts and talk to myself.

 

[ThinClient]

There's no way to confirm or deny it. At the end of the day prayer is just a method for me to collect my thoughts and talk to myself.

That's called thinking. Some people do it in a method called meditation. When you push the whole "thinking" thing too far, it becomes wishful thinking and that crosses into the nonsense category.

Both of these two are acceptable alternatives to the wishful thinking bullshit that is also known as prayer to some bronze age myth of a god.

 

[AViking]

When you face death you're doing more than thinking and meditating though. Even the most non-religious person prays on the battlefield.

 

[ThinClient]

When you face death you're doing more than thinking and meditating though. Even the most non-religious person prays on the battlefield.

That is such a trite statement. I know MANY in the armed services who wouldn't pray if it were the only thing they had left, including vets who've been mortally wounded but received treatment in time to survive. Those who resort to praying are those who are either controlled by fear (religion preys on fear and control) or who were brainwashed at a young age, or who simply shut off the part of their brain that manages rational thought.

I, myself, have faced death though not in military service. Praying was the last thing on my mind. My mind was too busy looking for a solution to save myself because no magical sky fairy was going to get the job done.

 

[AViking]

It's not magic. The bible says god and prayer is real. Repent you heretic!

I don't think I've ever prayed so you're probably right.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Let me explain prayer as it applies to Christians. Hopefully you will understand how prayers work in the life of Christians.

Prayers has multiple purpose for a Christian. Christians believe that prayers will not change God's will, not one iota. God is unchanging and his will and plan for the universe is unchanging since before creation. However, that doesn't mean that praying won't change reality. Prayers are part of God's will and included in his plan.

For humans, one of prayer's function is to bring our will closer to God's will. Prayer also reminds the Christian to communicate with God. It helps us remember that our God is a personal God, who sent his Son Jesus to be our Messiah, our savior.

We pray to let God know of our needs, because it's his will that we do so. God already know it, but he wants us to talk to him and tell him about our problems. The bible states that every believer will pray and should pray constantly.