Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If prayers go unanswered....?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 67 of 201 (196413)
04-03-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by pink sasquatch
04-03-2005 11:22 AM


Re: simple use of a complicated explanation
Hi Pink. Good to see we're sparring again.
Hey - no really, I don't say "Goddidit" to everything.
I think the "Goddidit" is a strawman Shraff has landed on me on many occasions at the forum.
If an explanation meets all the evidence and explains everything, then it's a good one, as, well, it explains it. Or are you saying that evolution doesn't explain everything? In that case I have no good reason to believe in it, as it doesn't explain everything.
I certainly wouldn't blema Frank's cancer on God. There is a complex theology pertaining to most people's plights, in the bible and a deep investigation with an open mind will make you realize that sometimes God isn't the least involved in things you might expect to see.
I know you're an intelligent guy here at the forum, so I hope you can see my earlier points about prayers being God's will, rather than society - who want to set the criteria, and say "if this and that isn't solved, then there's no God". Essentially the opposite, (their own will), not God's and what he said would happen.
But I think even you will know that God is a person of his Word. When he says he'll do something, he sticks to it. For example, he remembere Abraham, Izacc and Jacob when he heared the cries of suffering because of the servitude of his people in Egypt.
So this is not a simple issue, as I'm sure you can respect that the bible has a certain outlook pertaining to prayer.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-03-2005 11:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-03-2005 11:22 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-03-2005 12:44 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 70 of 201 (196443)
04-03-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by pink sasquatch
04-03-2005 12:44 PM


Re: knowing the result
Hi, the weight of burdens has increased. (postings to me). Forgive my short reply, for now.
I guess I'm confused then. God is the explanation for everything, but he is not the explanation for Frank's cancer? and He isn't the least involved in many things?
I think I always get asked this one. Did you read in the thread where I said that it might be God's will to NOT heal someone, but that doesn't mean God gave them the disease? I think you'll agree that logically I can make that valid difference known.
I think you've mis-understood my rantings. I meant that God is the simplest explaination for all factors involved, in my answered prayers. I didn't mean that God is the answer "for everything", as that's the "Goddidit" strawman I am not infact arguing.
You're right that I say that God is the answer for everything in the sense of everything in the universe came about because he created it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-03-2005 12:44 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-03-2005 1:16 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 72 of 201 (196454)
04-03-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by pink sasquatch
04-03-2005 1:16 PM


Re: knowing vs believing
I think I look at this epistemologically. Apparently, we can know things without evidence. What I mean by that in simple terms, is that
if you slapped me on the face, and five minutes later, I "knew" you slapped me, I infact have no evidence, yet the knowledge remains.
In this day and age, that means very little because of the authoratitive position that science holds. So in a way, because of lies, and false witnesses, and biases, we throw the epistemological baby out with the bathwater.
There is still very valid scenarios of epistemological truths pertaining to actual events. As with the slap.
Shraff, and even probably you will understandably only be satisfied with empirical evidence, and a tangible truth. This is understandable, but
you have to realize that the very nature of the truth gives only a personal knowledge to the believer. This means that if you yourself underwent
healing in ten seconds for each sympton, then if somebody suggested these other things accounted for it, you'd laugh at them. And this would be because of the truths of the past also. We collect circumstances beyond coincidence, and add them to our faith. And even we only collect them if they are worthy. If anything remember that point, that we only collect them, if they are worthy, and specific. True, the vague and confirmation biased, post-hoc rationalizer is guilty if he asks for a sign and the television goes off. But if he asks for healing of cancer, and gets it? Well, would you be convinced? My testimony is true but apparently Shraff thinks I'm talking out my ass = futility for mike to continue in this topic.
If you have no evidence except the fact that you prayed, explanations based on psychology (placebo effect) or physiology (immune system) are simpler explanations given the evidence.
From your standpoint I guess that might be true. But my second prayer was in anger. Also, can belief act as a placebo? What about in instances outside of the body? Like Christ on the plate? What about life-changes that are out of our control. I testify of all these things, otherwise I would be lying to you. And so, this Shraffy-happy list of what it could be, should have the most likely scenario on it, that I followed my biblical instructions and got the desired effect. A bit like a prediction of science almost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-03-2005 1:16 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-03-2005 1:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 74 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 3:58 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 78 of 201 (196555)
04-03-2005 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
04-03-2005 3:58 PM


Re: knowing vs believing
The slap analogy is one of thousands of instances which could illustrate my point, which is that we can have knowledge before or without evidence.
I know I think in my head without needing evidence. I know my heart beats without needing evidence. We know food tastes good without evidence, we can experience truths without evidence. There are trials because there is no certainty even with evidence in some cases, yet a witness will know the truth. Amazing really, but a vast amount of the time, real things happen without empirical or tangible evidence.
If someone slaps me they leave no evidence but I have the knowledge, so my point is still correct.
And it's all moot as to whether there is evidence for all of the above lil miss Shraffy, because we knew all those things before science.
This is a truth Shraff.
As much as I would love to answer all those questions in your other post, I feel that the ultimate truths pertaining to your posts and my posts leaves us with the problem of the true truths being unidentifiably moot pertaining of the truths I have told you. I suppose it's futile because of that problem, and we are going nowhere, so I think we she agree to disagree.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-03-2005 07:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 3:58 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 10:00 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 102 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-04-2005 5:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 80 of 201 (196561)
04-03-2005 9:12 PM


Final thought from irrefutable mike
It seems that to atheistoagnosticos, morals are relative.
So when God doesn't answer a prayer, then the unbeliever says "he doesn't exist because it's wrong to leave the poor hungry".
But morals are relative you say. Does this mean that you, the unbeliever are correct morally? What about another unbeliever with another moral? Shouldn't it be God who has the absolute moral?
It's self-righteousness to expect God to cater to your moral whim at the expense of another contradictory moral whim.
Since God is consistent, prayers will be answered according to his absolute and righteouss will.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by nator, posted 04-03-2005 10:03 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 108 of 201 (196886)
04-05-2005 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by nator
04-05-2005 9:38 AM


Shraff, where's your evidence to back up your claims?
How do you not know that they did thank the doctors aswell as thanking God?
If you say you haven't heard of miracle cases, then how is it you're complaining about them? I guess you HAVE heard of miraculous claims afterall.
Don't forget that I am Columbo, and can obviously deduce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 9:38 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 10:01 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 111 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-05-2005 10:09 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 115 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 10:23 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 113 of 201 (196899)
04-05-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by pink sasquatch
04-05-2005 10:09 AM


Hi Pink, sorry if it seems I've been avoiding questions lately but this isn't question a mike thread anyway . Tell Shraff that if a witness is evidence then she must look at the Gospel as evidence. If not then we can know thing swithout evidence.
I deduce that you know a relative of yours is deluded. Did you require evidence to know this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-05-2005 10:09 AM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-05-2005 10:39 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 123 of 201 (196919)
04-05-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by pink sasquatch
04-05-2005 10:39 AM


Unfortunately I have a problem with that as well - the reasoning of "I must believe to see the evidence, but I must look at evidence to believe."
That's not what I was saying though. She said my witnessing something is evidence, Cannot this also be the case with the witnesses who wrote the Gospel and bible?
But we CAN know things without evidence. I know what I done today, but I have no evidence.
I'm talking about what we DO know, not what we don't. So you relative didn't actually know it afterall. Fair enough, but that doesn't stop the 90% of cases which will be REAL knowledge. For an analogy, I'll say;
If I went and played football today and I know I got hit by the ball, but your relative also played football and said he got hit by the ball, but his story is halucination, then does his story negate my story? No. If I speak wisdom then hear me.
I would say that there is evidence of God, but your whole mindset (and Shraffs)of skeptical and dobtful enquiry is what is NOT required according to the bible.
Nevertheless, I understand why you are skeptical, but being so won't make God not exist, for the reason I mentioned early thread. The bible says we pray according to his will, but none-believers say God doesn't exist if he doesn't act according to the unbelievers criteria,(theri will, the opposite) albeit a relative criteria, because unbelievers say morals are relative.
So if you say "there's a poor man, so God doesn't exist" and the poor man says "he does too", who is right?
Do you think the pope didn't believe in God when he wasn't getting healed?
So who's right? And there is all kinds of logical pathways I have been thinking about pertaining to this topic. For example, if Crashfrog would say God doesn't exist because he's a "do nothing" God then do I exist?
Do I exist? Apparently I'm a perfectly decent chap who even doesn't do harm and seeks good for people, surely if I existed, and a whole bunch of morally inclined unbelievers and believers also existed, then there would be no poor people at all.
So, can the existence of God really be put down to what we expect of him when we have had many years to put things right?
Either we don't exist, or we're not as good and as selfless as we believe we are. That is why Christ is our righteousness, because we are not good. Christ said that only God is good, and we know that when God was on earth he fed and healed those he came across, and he still does today. So I suppose the logic of basing people's existence on whether they act according to how you think they should act is a poor one.
And so if Christ died for your sins, and for mankind, then has God not done something according to his will? But seek the kingdom of God first, and then he shall add these proves to you.
Don't be self-righteouss like those others, who think that it should be on their own terms, and say "God will give me this that and the other, and do it my way". You must surely know, that if God is - as you people remind me so very often, omnipotent etc..then his will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and ofcourse it will, because HE is GOD!
Sorry about my rant. Pastor mikey has finished now.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-05-2005 10:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-05-2005 10:39 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 11:25 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 126 of 201 (196922)
04-05-2005 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by nator
04-05-2005 11:12 AM


If this is what he considers "intense physical illness" then he's a pretty fragile boy
I didn't call it an "intense physical illness" lil miss Shraffy. How long must I suffer these people. Bring hither the real quote lest I have to rectify you. Canst thou possibly refute omni-mike, when thou knowest his signature?

As for me - I'm a constantly verying potentially undefined diffused mass, intrinsically shape shifting thus forming and re-forming in various gaseous nebulae. To locate my form in the context of energy, as defined by the limited homo sapien brain - one can follow the equation; energy = mike x creo speed2 = Thus we now know the relevant nature of my true being to be 90000000000000 omni-mikes ~ mike the wiz ~

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 11:12 AM nator has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 130 of 201 (196927)
04-05-2005 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by nator
04-05-2005 11:25 AM


Shraff, I already adressed those points, you simply repeated yourself in message #68. I feel I have answered these questions as best I can but that nothing will satisfy save a visit from Yahweh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by nator, posted 04-05-2005 11:25 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by nator, posted 04-06-2005 7:58 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 183 of 201 (198381)
04-11-2005 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by nator
04-08-2005 5:57 PM


Re: blood in a book
You were on my mind when considering how "chance" could be an answer.(I had to give you a chance) There is my own blood in my bible, a sign for a covenant between me and God, that says I am God's. Every so often I ask if I am still written in the book, when I am concerned, and I open the book on the page of blood. That happened twice before when I asked for it.
So when I read as usual, I said to myself, "now if I am fair to Shraff, I will seek this and if it appears not, then was it down to chance, and will I ignore the "miss" and be guilty of confirmation bias by explaining it away, as Shraff said?". I opened the bible (as I was seeking the page firstly), and there was the blood.
Ofcourse, I can't prove this to you, but can you see why it is difficuilt to buy your explanation? This is seemingly beyond coincidence is it not?
I have opened it on that page when NOT asking, and I've seen it quite a few times when not asking. I'm telling you this last part so that I withold no evidence from you. That's as honest and as objective as I can get.
You said my witness is evidence. It is, everything I've said is true. I am also aware that you believe in memory not being accurate? I will leave you to consider how much of a factor that is.
Does this help? It seems to be what you have sought me to do, some kind of "experiment" if you like.
It might seem almost silly this instance from a point of view of a person reading this post, but it was impressive when it happened I can tell you, because I personally conclude it is beyond chance if it happens every time I ask God. I mean, we're not talking about one blink for yes and two for no. We're talking about one page out of thousands.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-11-2005 05:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by nator, posted 04-08-2005 5:57 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by nator, posted 04-15-2005 2:56 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 193 of 201 (200087)
04-18-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by nator
04-15-2005 2:56 PM


Re: blood in a book
[insert red-faced smiley]/
Erm, shraff, *hah*, *yeah* - *touches face to comfort himself*.
I feel a total ASS.
That's exactly what it was. I have to confess now that I've been fooling myself about this, without checking. Thinking about it logically, it makes sense now, in that when I randomnly opened my bible to put my blood on it, it would naturally open on the page which has a "memory" so to speak (as you referred to).
You see, I tested like you said, and it kept opening on that page.
So first it seemed way beyond chance but now it seems to favour a chance answer. Which is kind of annoying. I don't know whether God would want me to ignore my doubts and believe it anyway. Maybe my doubt caused it like my faith caused the hits? Well, good job my faith never depended on such things.
But then, has it recently became easy to open that page? I've tried to be honest as possible, but I honestly don't recall it landed on that page all that much in times past, except for when I asked.
You could put that down to me ignoring it except when I got hits I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by nator, posted 04-15-2005 2:56 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by nator, posted 04-18-2005 11:24 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 195 of 201 (200301)
04-19-2005 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by nator
04-18-2005 11:24 AM


faith increase from mustard seed
If you are honestly saying that your faith doesn't depend upon such things, then why do you constantly present them as some kind of reason that you believe, or proof of god, or something?
Well, I suppose that these things increase my faith, or did increase it.
When I was 17 and below, I just had a theism, yet believed in Christ. I just believed there was God, but disbelieved that he could do anything, or atleast I didn't take it that seriously that he actually would because this is reality to most, right?. But later I really believed he could answer prayers and requests, so I produced the substance of all things hoped for.
No, if favours chance this blood on the page thing, but I still believe God answered, because God has worked with chance in the bible. Joseph!! And his whole entrance into Egypt worked off of chance events.
I still concede that it's up to you whether to believe God is/isn't necessary(pertaining to the blood circumstance), and that you might think he doesn't answer my prayers, but I believe he does.
So, I've always believed because of Jesus Christ more than anything/one else. If I had no more prayer hits for fifty years, I think I would still believe. So maybe it will be hard for you to de-convert me eh Shraffy?
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-19-2005 10:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by nator, posted 04-18-2005 11:24 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024