Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If prayers go unanswered....?
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 180 of 201 (198351)
04-11-2005 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Citizzzen
04-10-2005 4:38 PM


Tangent with a purpose
Ok, perhaps a recap is in order.
I said
quote:
But the same Public Relations can be applied to an atheist view of prayer.
If a believer gets what is asked for, it is merely chance, pure coincidence.
If a believer does not get what is asked for, then prayer is a futile activity.
Therefore, prayer always fails. With the right spin, the atheist can never be wrong.
This reply was in response to your corollary stating that according to believers, prayers can never fail.
Now I can’t prove that prayers never fail nor can any atheist prove prayers always fail. But just because there is no proof regarding prayers doesn’t mean that is an indictment on the existence of God.
I said:
quote:
Now, what is not often considered by atheists is this question. How often does a coincidence need to occur before it can begin to look no longer as a coincidence? Does the sum total of multiple coincidences occurring on a regular basis and often in quick succession constitute something other than one large coincidence? One might say no, it is just one large coincidence, until it happens to them..."
Here, I was trying to offer a scenario where all is not what it seems and that some events in life appear to be more than random chance. I do this in order to open the possibility that these events do not always have a plausible, identifiable, physical cause.
Of course, this does not further the belief in the supernatural and I would strongly hesitate to make such a leap.
Indeed, most people, (I know I am taking liberty with the use of the word most, no replies necessary), would simply say that not enough time and effort has been exerted to uncover a logical physical explanation.
For atheist, the quest for a physical explanation has no end. If one is not found, then the argument is simply that some day it will be. Believers get to a point where potential physical explanations have been stretched beyond limits and a supernatural cause begs to be recognized.
I was trying to show this using the hypothesis as foundation and also to show how it is possible that perfectly sane rational people come to a belief in God and that, in doing so, they have not suddenly become delusional.
Then crashfrog responds:
quote:
What is not often considered by believers is the fact that we have mathematical tools that can be applied to tell us what is coincidence and what is not, and that your freehand seat-of-your-pants estimation of significance is liable to be almost always completely wrong.
Here Crashfrog implies that mathematics can be used to determine whether an event or series of events (coincidences) have significance. To put it another way, that it is possible to prove mathematically that certain events are beyond random chance. I had not really considered the mathematical approach, so it intrigued me.
Then your response
quote:
Can I have an example of a set of occurrences, happening on a regular basis, in quick succession that are obviously supernatural in origin? Perhaps I missed this happening on the evening news...
Here begins the hypothetical discussion in order to show that my seat-of-your-pants estimation mentioned by crash is not necessarily wrong and, at the very least, has a rational basis.
NosyNed has been gracious enough to examine the mathematics of the hypothesis to determine whether such a series of events would be considered beyond mere chance. Based on his assessment, albeit filled with broad assumptions Message 176, it is unlikely that these events are the result of random chance.
If the events can be shown to be beyond random chance then there must be a cause. And if the cause has been explored extensively and no viable physical explanation presents itself then causes outside of nature would, to some people, be feasible. Here is where believers and atheist part ways.
I am attempting to demonstrate that from the point of view of the individual experiencing the phenomena, causes outside of nature would be possible. Of course it is easy for one to say; No, I would never consider that cause. It can’t happen, wouldn’t happen, and is simple nonsense. Your phenomena is uncanny, but purely random."
But we have already discussed how a hypothetical event might not be considered random chance. It wasn’t random even when the event selected, (hearing a song before turning on the radio), is not in itself a religious experience.
I have discussed religious conversions with many people and have read a fair amount about how people who were not initially religious come around to believing in God. There are, of course, blind ignorant people who look at a faith healer on stage, see a cure, and believe. It’s unfortunate that they are being duped, (and likely robbed of their wallets).
But this is only a small segment of believers. There are those who claim a feeling of energy through their bodies when they accept Jesus. Others claim that it is more of an inner feeling of being cleansed. Some, such as C.S. Lewis, claim to have come to faith through a rational thought process. Still others perceive a series of unlikely coincidences that defy explanation.
I don’t believe this should be unusual because I believe in a God who values a personal relationship with the believer. Since all of us are different, then we all have different thresholds for belief. For some, like C.S. Lewis, an ‘extraordinary’ event is not necessary.
For others, those who cannot make a leap of faith based solely on rational arguments, then I believe God finds the most appropriate method of communicating His presence. The communication is with the individual in question and not to the world via some supernatural extravaganza
I selected the hypothesis involving coincidences because that was how I came to believe. But the coincidences were not so mundane as hearing a song before it is played on the radio even though we have shown that it is unlikely to be random.
The events were personal, directed at me, and having significance for me alone. Events that by their very nature removed in my mind all probability that I was dealing with randomness. I was dealing with a personal communication from God that I found impossible to deny.
Does that make me delusional? Perhaps, all I can say is that since then, my life has changed for the better and I believe God has everything to do with that.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Citizzzen, posted 04-10-2005 4:38 PM Citizzzen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Citizzzen, posted 04-15-2005 2:16 PM Monk has replied
 Message 191 by nator, posted 04-15-2005 3:07 PM Monk has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 192 of 201 (199615)
04-15-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Citizzzen
04-15-2005 2:16 PM


Paying Caesar
quote:
I think your example was a good way to demonstrate that sometimes things occur, and they can not be explained. However, when this happens, people will speculate about an explanation. Speculation leads to hypothesis, which leads to conditions that can be tested.
Well, when the hypothesis deals with a scientific issue then yes, it can be tested. We aren’t dealing with a scientific issue. Supernatural issues are outside the realm of scientific explanation. It is difficult to test an hypothesis that includes a series of events that are rare occurences.
quote:
At this point, you have to ask, has any hypothetical supernatural explanation ever been proven to be true, or even resisted efforts to prove that it is false? I do not know of one. In fact, James Randi has a standing offer of $1,000,000.00 for verifiable proof of any supernatural force. He has never had to pay up.
True, no argument here. The only observation I can make is that they are supernatural events and these are very rare occurrences to the public at large manifesting in some form of a public spectacle. I have no idea how often God intervenes in such a way as to appear miraculous to those who pray.
quote:
I realize that not every phenomenon (prayer, for example) has ever been proven or "disproven" conclusively. However, no supernatural occurrence has ever been proven to be real. Also, real world explanations continue to be found for potential supernatural events. Until at least one supernatural occurrence is ever proven, I think skeptics are right to discount supernatural hypothesis outright, and search only for real world reasons.
Again, your points are completely valid. No argument here
quote:
But nowadays "perfectly sane rational people" develop belief in Allah, Krishna, God, and many other deities. In times past "perfectly sane rational people" believed in Zeus, Thor, and Apollo. If you don't propose that all of the deities exist (or existed) then aren't some of them, if not delusional, coming to an incorrect conclusion?
I can’t speak to the sanity of people in times past. Surely many were sane and also believed in a variety of deities. I also do not know if they came to the right or wrong conclusions.
quote:
Well, to bring things back to prayer, are you suggesting that most Christians explore every possible "real world" reason for the appearance of prayers being answered, before they decide that prayer works? I would argue that, much like the Ufologists, most Christians have already made up their minds.
Not at all. The world is filled with all sorts of gullible people. Many Christians would not even begin to look for real world explanations. They want their prayers to be answered by God and not in some simple real world way.
These individuals have their mind made up the instant they get a positive result from praying. But not all Christians are wired that way. Then there are still other individuals who believe the most bizarre things. The world is filled with these loonies.
quote:
I would bet the same is true for religious belief in general. Some people have experimented with various religions, before choosing the one that "works" for them. However, my experience is that most people simply adopt the dominant religion of their family/neighborhood/country.
That’s probably true for most people and it was for me. Many people don’t bother to question it. It’s easier to just fall in line with the family. Others have searched for questions and eventually became perfectly content with the theology of their childhood. I wasn’t and found a religion that made sense to me.
quote:
I am curious why you assumed you were being contacted by God, as opposed to Allah, or Krishna, or some other deity.
In the Old Testament, God referred to himself as I AM or Lord. When He became incarnate, He wanted to be called Jesus. I’m a Christian, so when I pray, I use either of those names. Does He still refer to Himself that way? I don’t know. Maybe He likes to be called Allah instead of Lord. If it’s important to Him, I’m sure He will let me know.
This message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 04-15-2005 01:23 PM

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Citizzzen, posted 04-15-2005 2:16 PM Citizzzen 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