Why doesn't God like amputees?
Replies
-
To say this is impossible presupposes that you understand how God's causality is related to human free acts. I believe God is causally related to human acts in a way that moves the human will to act both freely and under divine influence. I don't think our knowledge of God is sufficient to declare this is impossible. You are assuming God's causality is the same in kind as yours.I am content to disregard the label of Calvinist and focus only on the position that you are asserting here which I have put in bold. There is no such thing as this, "...an understanding of predestination that affirms both the providence and all-encompassing plan of God for our history but that also affirms a meaningful and real role for human free acts." and that point is not even debatable. It is completely impossible for this state of affairs to exist in reality.
It would be like saying you believe in a football that is not a football. It is a matter of fact that X cannot be equal to "not X" and it cannot be both equal and not equal at the same time and it can't be neither for that matter.0 -
I have not seen evidence of a god's actual existence so it makes no sense for me to try and diagnose specifics about it. That would be like if I tried to tell you about the family structure of Bigfoot. I have to first find a Bigfoot and then I can learn specifics about it.
The reason that I can say it is impossible is because you are proposing a state of affairs that cannot exist in reality and that is revealed to us by using a logical model.
If our actions are already known by the mind of god before we even know them then we do not have free will because we would never be able to take an action that would be outside of the knowledge of god. In other words we would never be able to surprise god. God though we were going to do one thing but he was wrong and because of our freewill we did something else.
This would mean that all of our actions would already be scripted out in the mind of god and at no point would we be capable of deviating from that script.
So you see I do not have to presuppose anything to deduce that it is axiomatic that freewill cannot exist in the same reality as omniscience. The mere existence of a mind that could know all of our actions nullifies even the possibility of freewill.0 -
Just because I know the script doesn't mean I wrote the script. I don't understand why you think that an omniscient being knowing how we will exercise free will precludes the logical possibility of free will.0
-
Just because I know the script doesn't mean I wrote the script. I don't understand why you think that an omniscient being knowing how we will exercise free will precludes the logical possibility of free will.
Because omniscience is not simply constantly up to date. It is all knowing. Meaning the knowledge is already in hand. If god were ever wrong about our actions then he would not be omniscient and he is always correct about our actions then freewill have any value.
Think of it like this:
God created all of us already knowing what all of our decisions would be prior to our creation.
This means god knew our final destination prior to our being created.
The only logical conclusions are we either do not have free will or if we do have free will that our free will is irrelevant.
Given that free will would be nothing more than a vestige in this scenario it makes more sense that the free will never actually existed in the first place.
However I will concede that freewill can exist in the same reality as omniscience as long as you would be willing to concede that freewill would be irrelevant if that were the case.0 -
"Because omniscience is not simply constantly up to date. It is all knowing. Meaning the knowledge is already in hand. If god were ever wrong about our actions then he would not be omniscient and he is always correct about our actions then freewill have any value.
Think of it like this:
God created all of us already knowing what all of our decisions would be prior to our creation.
This means god knew our final destination prior to our being created.
The only logical conclusions are we either do not have free will or if we do have free will that our free will is irrelevant.
Given that free will would be nothing more than a vestige in this scenario it makes more sense that the free will never actually existed in the first place.
However I will concede that freewill can exist in the same reality as omniscience as long as you would be willing to concede that freewill would be irrelevant if that were the case. "
I have played all three of the games. Assasins Creed 2 was my favorite. I just don't like how it ended in part 3. As for amputees, I don't see the ones I know crying about "WHY ME?!". Instead, I always hear them say, "better my leg than my life." Regardless of what they believe.
PS- In case if anyone is wondering what the hell does Assasins Creed have anything to do with this? Play it. It deals with all kinds of theological and metaphysical and logical questions.0 -
Because omniscience is not simply constantly up to date. It is all knowing. Meaning the knowledge is already in hand.
"Up to date" and "already in hand" are meaningless to an omniscient being outside of time. That being can perfectly know our decisions even though we have free will because the omniscient being can see all of time simultaneously (so to speak).0 -
OK, so god knows what will happen before it happens. Then do you believe that god is weak or that god is sadistic? Because if he knows that a child will be born with a terrible disease and live only a short time constantly in pain then either he isn't powerful enough to stop the conception or he's sadistic enough to let a baby and its family suffer. Or do we now go back to that "mysterious ways" thing? If so then perhaps abortion is one of those "mysterious ways" too.0
-
OK, so god knows what will happen before it happens. Then do you believe that god is weak or that god is sadistic? Because if he knows that a child will be born with a terrible disease and live only a short time constantly in pain then either he isn't powerful enough to stop the conception or he's sadistic enough to let a baby and its family suffer. Or do we now go back to that "mysterious ways" thing? If so then perhaps abortion is one of those "mysterious ways" too.
I don't recall the part in the bible where god said abortion is wrong. I do however recall the part of Adam being a fully formed man but not alive till he took his first breath.which leads me to believe the bible feels life does not start till you take your first breath.0 -
I don't have an explanation for why an all powerful God would allow evil. That's a separate question from whether the existence of an all knowing God precludes free will and one I don't have a good answer for.0
-
Because omniscience is not simply constantly up to date. It is all knowing. Meaning the knowledge is already in hand.
"Up to date" and "already in hand" are meaningless to an omniscient being outside of time. That being can perfectly know our decisions even though we have free will because the omniscient being can see all of time simultaneously (so to speak).
"That being can perfectly know our decisions even though we have freewill" <=This sentence is a logical impossibility.
It is not possible to perfectly know the decisions of a mind that has freewill because that mind would be the generator of those decisions. Basically those decisions would not exist to be known until the mind created them. If the omniscient mind exists then all of those decisions are already known all the way from the beginning to the end. So as I stated before if you want to call it freewill then sure you have a "freewill" but it is completely irrelevant and useless. It means literally nothing.
If there isn't an omniscient mind then it is possible that there are decisions that we create which were not only unknown but were also unknowable. We could be the creator of those choices and if that is true then we can have freewill that could mean something but even that is not a given.
EDIT: Also I feel a phrase like "outside of time" is nonsensical. We don't have any examples of anything that exists outside of time to know what it should look like. I also have the same problem with phrases like "outside the universe", "before time" and "nothing".0 -
Because omniscience is not simply constantly up to date. It is all knowing. Meaning the knowledge is already in hand.
"Up to date" and "already in hand" are meaningless to an omniscient being outside of time. That being can perfectly know our decisions even though we have free will because the omniscient being can see all of time simultaneously (so to speak).
"That being can perfectly know our decisions even though we have freewill" <=This sentence is a logical impossibility.
It is not possible to perfectly know the decisions of a mind that has freewill because that mind would be the generator of those decisions. Basically those decisions would not exist to be known until the mind created them. If the omniscient mind exists then all of those decisions are already known all the way from the beginning to the end. So as I stated before if you want to call it freewill then sure you have a "freewill" but it is completely irrelevant and useless. It means literally nothing.
If there isn't an omniscient mind then it is possible that there are decisions that we create which were not only unknown but were also unknowable. We could be the creator of those choices and if that is true then we can have freewill that could mean something but even that is not a given.
Here's an example... let's just say you are married (I have no idea). Your wife really likes chicken and you know this because you love her and pay attention to her likes and dislikes. You take her to a buffet with all kinds of options from fish to chicken to pork to beef. You already know what protein your wife is going to choose. I mean, sure, she could surprise you, but odds are she will choose what she always chooses because humans are creatures of habit. You're not going to force her to choose pork because she hates pork and you love her and know she hates pork.
So why can't an omniscient (all-knowing) being know what choices you are going to make ahead of time? If this being has knowledge of all things, as the term omniscient implies, then this being has knowledge of your likes and dislikes and patterns of behavior. Also, if we compare this omniscient being to the above analogy, then forcing you to make a choice that goes against your nature would not reflect the love this omniscient being hopes to express.EDIT: Also I feel a phrase like "outside of time" is nonsensical. We don't have any examples of anything that exists outside of time to know what it should look like. I also have the same problem with phrases like "outside the universe", "before time" and "nothing".
Furthermore, man created the concept of time as it only represents a measurement of the flow of events. Much of quantum physics remains theory, but it is the belief that there are points in the universe, namely black holes, where time converges (as mass is condensed). Einstein's theory of relativity actually touched on this, but decades after his death, we are still trying to decipher the theory of relativity as it applies to practical application.0 -
Here's an example... let's just say you are married (I have no idea). Your wife really likes chicken and you know this because you love her and pay attention to her likes and dislikes. You take her to a buffet with all kinds of options from fish to chicken to pork to beef. You already know what protein your wife is going to choose. I mean, sure, she could surprise you, but odds are she will choose what she always chooses because humans are creatures of habit. You're not going to force her to choose pork because she hates pork and you love her and know she hates pork.
So why can't an omniscient (all-knowing) being know what choices you are going to make ahead of time? If this being has knowledge of all things, as the term omniscient implies, then this being has knowledge of your likes and dislikes and patterns of behavior. Also, if we compare this omniscient being to the above analogy, then forcing you to make a choice that goes against your nature would not reflect the love this omniscient being hopes to express.
The buffet analogy does not fit for the very reason you pointed out. She could surprise me.
An omniscient being would know all of my choices ahead of time. It isn't a case of knowing me really well and making very accurate guesses. It is actually knowing all of my choices. Likes, dislikes and patterns never come in to play.
Neither does love. Whether or not the omniscient being loves you or not is irrelevant. The mere fact that all of your choices are already known in the mind of that being makes your choices nothing more than vestiges.
I really hope this is getting through to someone out there. An omniscient being would know everything with 100% accuracy. Not even one thing would be unknown to such a mind. Right down the the spinning of every electron is existence. Nothing would be unknowable to such a mind.0 -
Here's an example... let's just say you are married (I have no idea). Your wife really likes chicken and you know this because you love her and pay attention to her likes and dislikes. You take her to a buffet with all kinds of options from fish to chicken to pork to beef. You already know what protein your wife is going to choose. I mean, sure, she could surprise you, but odds are she will choose what she always chooses because humans are creatures of habit. You're not going to force her to choose pork because she hates pork and you love her and know she hates pork.
So why can't an omniscient (all-knowing) being know what choices you are going to make ahead of time? If this being has knowledge of all things, as the term omniscient implies, then this being has knowledge of your likes and dislikes and patterns of behavior. Also, if we compare this omniscient being to the above analogy, then forcing you to make a choice that goes against your nature would not reflect the love this omniscient being hopes to express.
The buffet analogy does not fit for the very reason you pointed out. She could surprise me.
An omniscient being would know all of my choices ahead of time. It isn't a case of knowing me really well and making very accurate guesses. It is actually knowing all of my choices. Likes, dislikes and patterns never come in to play.
Neither does love. Whether or not the omniscient being loves you or not is irrelevant. The mere fact that all of your choices are already known in the mind of that being makes your choices nothing more than vestiges.
I really hope this is getting through to someone out there. An omniscient being would know everything with 100% accuracy. Not even one thing would be unknown to such a mind. Right down the the spinning of every electron is existence. Nothing would be unknowable to such a mind.
You are correct, but that does not mean free will is taken away simply because something or someone knows my choices ahead of time. Your argument implies that simply having knowledge of one's choice means that an omniscient being has a desire to motivate that choice. Granted, the ability to influence that choice exists, but likewise, an omniscient being with the power to influence choice can also choose not to.0 -
I must not be doing a very good job of explaining my position here. The omniscient being does not have to have a desire to influence us at all.You are correct, but that does not mean free will is taken away simply because something or someone knows my choices ahead of time. Your argument implies that simply having knowledge of one's choice means that an omniscient being has a desire to motivate that choice. Granted, the ability to influence that choice exists, but likewise, an omniscient being with the power to influence choice can also choose not to.
Think of it like this. There is an omniscient being living in the core of the earth. We can't ever perceive this being in any way and this being never does anything other than know everything. The mere existence of this being is rendering freewill to be either nonexistent or irrelevant.
None of our decisions would ever result in a change of the script as it were. We would like trains never able to steer ourselves anywhere other than where our rails are set to take us.
To say an omniscient being exists in the same reality as another being with freewill is like saying that there are two people and each of them are taller than each other. It just doesn't make sense.0 -
I must not be doing a very good job of explaining my position here. The omniscient being does not have to have a desire to influence us at all.You are correct, but that does not mean free will is taken away simply because something or someone knows my choices ahead of time. Your argument implies that simply having knowledge of one's choice means that an omniscient being has a desire to motivate that choice. Granted, the ability to influence that choice exists, but likewise, an omniscient being with the power to influence choice can also choose not to.
Think of it like this. There is an omniscient being living in the core of the earth. We can't ever perceive this being in any way and this being never does anything other than know everything. The mere existence of this being is rendering freewill to be either nonexistent or irrelevant.
None of our decisions would ever result in a change of the script as it were. We would like trains never able to steer ourselves anywhere other than where our rails are set to take us.
To say an omniscient being exists in the same reality as another being with freewill is like saying that there are two people and each of them are taller than each other. It just doesn't make sense.
I see the point you are trying to make about pre-destiny, and I will cover that in a sec... however, I want to talk just for a second about the existence of these two beings. The theory of relativity has actually opened the door to the concept of alternate dimensions for which an omniscient being can exist independent of a being of free will without one affecting the other. Look into the concepts of 'String Theory' or the 'God particle'.
Now... pre-destiny vs free will is a wholly different argument. Personally, I don't believe in 'pre-destiny' in the absolute context for which you are subscribing. For the most part, I believe that we all have a purpose to serve, however, the paths with which we choose to serve that purpose is ours to create. The fact that an omniscient being knows my choices ahead of time does not change the fact that the choices are mine to make. Should I choose a path that would not lead me to my intended purpose, then this omniscient being, who is also omnipotent, will place people, events, or things in my path to lead me back to the intended destination (and/or purpose). In other words, this omniscient/omnipotent being uses his knowledge and abilities to guide and direct without eliminating the individual's capacity for free-will.
Your concept that free-will and omniscience cannot exist in the same reality is an absolute. An omnipotent being rises above absolutes.
Besides... only Sith lords deal in absolutes!
0 -
I see the point you are trying to make about pre-destiny, and I will cover that in a sec... however, I want to talk just for a second about the existence of these two beings. The theory of relativity has actually opened the door to the concept of alternate dimensions for which an omniscient being can exist independent of a being of free will without one affecting the other. Look into the concepts of 'String Theory' or the 'God particle'.
Now... pre-destiny vs free will is a wholly different argument. Personally, I don't believe in 'pre-destiny' in the absolute context for which you are subscribing. For the most part, I believe that we all have a purpose to serve, however, the paths with which we choose to serve that purpose is ours to create. The fact that an omniscient being knows my choices ahead of time does not change the fact that the choices are mine to make. Should I choose a path that would not lead me to my intended purpose, then this omniscient being, who is also omnipotent, will place people, events, or things in my path to lead me back to the intended destination (and/or purpose). In other words, this omniscient/omnipotent being uses his knowledge and abilities to guide and direct without eliminating the individual's capacity for free-will.
Your concept that free-will and omniscience cannot exist in the same reality is an absolute. An omnipotent being rises above absolutes.
Besides... only Sith lords deal in absolutes!
The god particle is referring to the higgs boson particle which was indicated by mathematics that it should exist and was only quite recently discovered. This particle is what makes it possible for all things to have mass and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
The theory of relativity was the brain child of Einstein and he was looking in to the behavior of objects in space and how their movement relative to one another would look at different rates of speed. From this he concluded that there was an equivalency between matter and energy.
String Theory is the laymen's term for m-theory with in a nutshell states that all of matter consists of tiny strings of energy. These strings would be one dimensional and they would be a part of literally everything.
I do not really feel qualified to delve any further in to these topics as they are the product of many great minds that dedicated their lives to their understanding. I have listened to the lectures given by the members of the national academy of sciences and these are the people that understand they theories the best and not one of them has every concluded that omniscience can coexist with freewill. In fact the vast majority of them don't even believe that freewill exists.
I do not believe in predestination. We were talking about how ineffective prayer is when it comes to asking god to heal amputees and wineplease was saying that god already knew about the prayer ahead of time and that the decision was made prior to the prayer actually taking place. That lead us down this road where we started talking about omniscience vs freewill.
You have actually made your situation a bit worse now saying that not only is God omniscient but that he is omnipotent as well. Now I can tell you that not only does your god not exist but if he did exist he is definitely evil.
Now God is creating finite beings that exist within time so that they can go through a limitless amount of torture over an infinite amount of time. He did know that they would end up in hell and furthermore he could stop all of this suffering with a mere act of will but he is choosing not to so that he can hang out in heaven with the most gullible of his creations.
EDIT: Absolutes are not necessarily evil. Obi-wan was wrong.0 -
You have actually made your situation a bit worse now saying that not only is God omniscient but that he is omnipotent as well. Now I can tell you that not only does your god not exist but if he did exist he is definitely evil.
Now God is creating finite beings that exist within time so that they can go through a limitless amount of torture over an infinite amount of time. He did know that they would end up in hell and furthermore he could stop all of this suffering with a mere act of will but he is choosing not to so that he can hang out in heaven with the most gullible of his creations.
So you have decided that because God (since we are doing away with pretenses about the being that I am referring to) does not give us immortality that he is somehow evil. But you stand on the precipice that you know that living as God is somehow a good thing and a priviledge that he is depriving us of. However, we do not know what burdens come with omniscience/omnipotence. Just like when you were a kid and you asked for a toy and your mom told you no. You didn't know that it was because mom was trying to get enough money together to pay the electric bill that month. And nor should she have shared that information with you because the knowledge alone would have been too great of a burden for your little kid mind.
Furthermore, addressing God's reluctance to protect us from all things evil, all things exist together in balance. All actions have subsequent counter actions, referring to the Domino effect. Let's say your tire goes flat, and thereby, making you late for work. God could have stopped your tire from going flat, but then you might have found yourself in a 5-car pile up on the freeway, and just the simple fact that you weren't occupying that space on the freeway at that exact moment prevented the accident all together. Five lives were saved, but you were late to work. I realize this is a simplistic example in relation to the kind of evils you were referring to, but the concept is still the same. Whatever evils that you see happen that you think God should be able to prevent, you have no idea what greater evils he is holding back.
Sure, God can do anything, and therefore, prayer should mean that amputees should be able to grow their limbs back. But if people spontaneously grew their limbs back, they might adopt the notion that they are somehow invincible and create further problems for themselves and others. The power of prayer may not allow us to grow lost digits back instantly, however, prayer is rarely answered immediately. As I stated earlier, everybody has a purpose and God places people and things in our path to keep us guided toward that purpose. Sometimes the movement of people and things takes time, after all, people have free will and God is only seeking to guide us. How do you know that there isn't some scientist out there who has not been giving the purpose of creating the science that will one day give the amputee the ability to regrow or replace limbs? After all, stem cell research has practical applications towards this type of advancement. Just because you prayed for it and weren't patient enough to wait for the answer does not mean that the prayer is not being answered.EDIT: Absolutes are not necessarily evil. Obi-wan was wrong.
BLASPHEMY!! :laugh: :laugh:0 -
The question should be "Why doesn't God like amputees anymore since claims of regrown limbs exist in christianity.
I know this link isn't exactly neutral, but it's a short read and has several claims on one page.
http://www.examiner.com/article/evidence-that-god-can-regrow-amputated-limbs-when-he-feels-like-it0 -
You have actually made your situation a bit worse now saying that not only is God omniscient but that he is omnipotent as well. Now I can tell you that not only does your god not exist but if he did exist he is definitely evil.
Now God is creating finite beings that exist within time so that they can go through a limitless amount of torture over an infinite amount of time. He did know that they would end up in hell and furthermore he could stop all of this suffering with a mere act of will but he is choosing not to so that he can hang out in heaven with the most gullible of his creations.
So you have decided that because God (since we are doing away with pretenses about the being that I am referring to) does not give us immortality that he is somehow evil. But you stand on the precipice that you know that living as God is somehow a good thing and a priviledge that he is depriving us of. However, we do not know what burdens come with omniscience/omnipotence. Just like when you were a kid and you asked for a toy and your mom told you no. You didn't know that it was because mom was trying to get enough money together to pay the electric bill that month. And nor should she have shared that information with you because the knowledge alone would have been too great of a burden for your little kid mind.
Furthermore, addressing God's reluctance to protect us from all things evil, all things exist together in balance. All actions have subsequent counter actions, referring to the Domino effect. Let's say your tire goes flat, and thereby, making you late for work. God could have stopped your tire from going flat, but then you might have found yourself in a 5-car pile up on the freeway, and just the simple fact that you weren't occupying that space on the freeway at that exact moment prevented the accident all together. Five lives were saved, but you were late to work. I realize this is a simplistic example in relation to the kind of evils you were referring to, but the concept is still the same. Whatever evils that you see happen that you think God should be able to prevent, you have no idea what greater evils he is holding back.
Sure, God can do anything, and therefore, prayer should mean that amputees should be able to grow their limbs back. But if people spontaneously grew their limbs back, they might adopt the notion that they are somehow invincible and create further problems for themselves and others. The power of prayer may not allow us to grow lost digits back instantly, however, prayer is rarely answered immediately. As I stated earlier, everybody has a purpose and God places people and things in our path to keep us guided toward that purpose. Sometimes the movement of people and things takes time, after all, people have free will and God is only seeking to guide us. How do you know that there isn't some scientist out there who has not been giving the purpose of creating the science that will one day give the amputee the ability to regrow or replace limbs? After all, stem cell research has practical applications towards this type of advancement. Just because you prayed for it and weren't patient enough to wait for the answer does not mean that the prayer is not being answered.EDIT: Absolutes are not necessarily evil. Obi-wan was wrong.
BLASPHEMY!! :laugh: :laugh:
Perhaps you define omniscience/omnipotence differently then I do. I keep rereading what you are writing and I am getting the impression that you think it means God is very powerful and knows a lot. It would actually mean that God would be ALL powerful and God would know ALL. Which means he would know is future and not be able to change it or he would be able to change it no necessarily able to know it but I have already addressed that part and so I will table that for now.
You stated: "...we do not know what burdens come with omniscience/omnipotence."
Actually we do. If God is truly omnipotent then he would have to have infinite resources to work with and an infinite capacity with which to deploy them. This means that there are no burdens to being god. None whatsoever. The concept of a burden does not even make sense to such a being. God would not know what it is like to need to do something and not have the time the materials and/or the energy to do it.
You stated: "...if people spontaneously grew their limbs back, they might adopt the notion that they are somehow invincible and create further problems for themselves and others."
Believers are constantly claiming that they are healed from all sorts of illnesses and injuries. Yet believers aren't going around claiming they are safe so long as they don't lose a limb. The reason people don't grow limbs back when they pray for it is because prayer does not actually do anything. It is just more obvious when you pray for something that would require an action from a god. If you pray to find you keys you can find your keys but if you pray for the ability to fly you won't be able to fly.
Prayer does not get credit for stem cell research. I keep deleting what I want to type here because this one kind of ticks me off. Christian groups have gone out of their way to fight stem cell research. Now that we are finally making some headway despite all this resistance I now have someone siting it as a possible answer to the millions of prayers that people have made asking for their limbs to regrow over the centuries.
I have so many theist putting down on science as being so unreliable and incomplete and all they while they are benefiting from it. Science is the single best tool that we have to find out about our world and it is the very thing that is making this conversation possible. Science is hard work and it is done by humans. I have not seen any evidence that suggests any form of supernatural being has anything to do with any of it.0 -
Perhaps you define omniscience/omnipotence differently then I do. I keep rereading what you are writing and I am getting the impression that you think it means God is very powerful and knows a lot. It would actually mean that God would be ALL powerful and God would know ALL. Which means he would know is future and not be able to change it or he would be able to change it no necessarily able to know it but I have already addressed that part and so I will table that for now.
You stated: "...we do not know what burdens come with omniscience/omnipotence."
Actually we do. If God is truly omnipotent then he would have to have infinite resources to work with and an infinite capacity with which to deploy them. This means that there are no burdens to being god. None whatsoever. The concept of a burden does not even make sense to such a being. God would not know what it is like to need to do something and not have the time the materials and/or the energy to do it.
Regardless of how ever we define omniscience/omnipotence, we can never truly know because we are not those things. Being omniscient/omnipotent might give a greater being the power to overrule cause-and-effect, but most certainly an outcome that action will occur. What I am stating is that God picks and chooses when and when not to intercede in the lives of free-will beings because of knowledge of all possibilities with which we do not possess. If we were to possess knowledge of all possibilities, you would likely lose your mind because you would be swayed by to many potential outcomes. That, I have to assume, is the burden of omniscience/omnipotence.You stated: "...if people spontaneously grew their limbs back, they might adopt the notion that they are somehow invincible and create further problems for themselves and others."
Believers are constantly claiming that they are healed from all sorts of illnesses and injuries. Yet believers aren't going around claiming they are safe so long as they don't lose a limb. The reason people don't grow limbs back when they pray for it is because prayer does not actually do anything. It is just more obvious when you pray for something that would require an action from a god. If you pray to find you keys you can find your keys but if you pray for the ability to fly you won't be able to fly.
Again, prayer is not an instant delivery. If everybody got everything they ever demanded, then everything would be chaos. Think about it. The ability to spontaneously regrow a limb would require an evolutionary change, of which, if occurring dramatically, would be sure to cause dissention and hatred among people as a whole. Those with the mutation would be rejected and outcast.
[/quote]Prayer does not get credit for stem cell research. I keep deleting what I want to type here because this one kind of ticks me off. Christian groups have gone out of their way to fight stem cell research. Now that we are finally making some headway despite all this resistance I now have someone siting it as a possible answer to the millions of prayers that people have made asking for their limbs to regrow over the centuries.
I have so many theist putting down on science as being so unreliable and incomplete and all they while they are benefiting from it. Science is the single best tool that we have to find out about our world and it is the very thing that is making this conversation possible. Science is hard work and it is done by humans. I have not seen any evidence that suggests any form of supernatural being has anything to do with any of it.
Don't lump me in with all the other Christians you know. I have and always will be a progressive thinker, and faith guides me to be more accepting than most. Most Christians do not really behave like Christians are supposed to. :grumble:0 -
Let me put it like this.
God can override free will, but he choose not because that would be depriving us of the blessing he gave us of intelligence.
God can override cause and effect, but he's careful about when he chooses to because it will probably create a big mess.0 -
You don't have to be a bachelor to know that a bachelor is unmarried. If we define omnipotent as all powerful than God would have to be all powerful to meet that definition. It cannot be the case that there is a greater being to overrule god because that would mean that God is not omnipotent. I do not have to be omnipotent to know that an omnipotent being would be the top of the line.
You say prayer is not an instant delivery. I am saying prayer is not a delivery at all. You postulate that if people could grow back their limbs people would reject them so again it is harkening back to the idea that if something seems horrible like the flat tire it is causing you to avoid something more horrible like the 5 car pile up. What do you suppose the Holocaust was the preferable outcome to? I don't doubt that it could have been worse but really was that the best God could come up with? Some of the Jewish that went through the holocaust went so far as to conclude that God had actually made a new covenant with the Nazis. I don't think that they would conclude that as bad as the Holocaust was that there could have been something worse that we avoided because of it.
You can make all the grumpy face emoticons that you want(but not more than 4). I still stand by what I said. If I pray for something to happen and nothing happens that means something. It does not mean that if I later decide to just do it myself that you can then say that God knew I would do it myself.
Either prayer does something or it doesn't. That is a testable claim and up to this point we don't have any evidence that it does anything. We need testable and repeatable proof that it works and until we have that we should be concluding that prayer has not demonstrated any effectiveness.
P.S. To say "Only a sith deals in absolutes." is an absolute. Take that Obi-Wan!!! If I were a Jedi Master they would be constantly sending me out of missions because they would not want to have to debate with me every day in that room. I would be all like "Why can't we get some chairs that have backs to them? We might as well be sitting on beanbag chairs."0 -
Either prayer does something or it doesn't. That is a testable claim and up to this point we don't have any evidence that it does anything. We need testable and repeatable proof that it works and until we have that we should be concluding that prayer has not demonstrated any effectiveness.
Well I have had proof, and that's enough for me. It's a little thing called faith. I didn't get where I am today (and I'm a long way from where I was) without divine assistance.P.S. To say "Only a sith deals in absolutes." is an absolute. Take that Obi-Wan!!! If I were a Jedi Master they would be constantly sending me out of missions because they would not want to have to debate with me every day in that room. I would be all like "Why can't we get some chairs that have backs to them? We might as well be sitting on beanbag chairs."
The statement is a parody of itself... but there is truth to it... there are fine lines and gray areas all over the place. Sure a sith is a creature of George Lucas' imagination, but it's meant to mean that things aren't as easily defined as we perceive them to be, much as many of your arguments in this dialogue.
Hey! It's been fun, but I'm going to walk away from the conversation at this point. Thank you for your service and I hope you have an awesome 4th!0 -
Either prayer does something or it doesn't. That is a testable claim and up to this point we don't have any evidence that it does anything. We need testable and repeatable proof that it works and until we have that we should be concluding that prayer has not demonstrated any effectiveness.
prayer doesn't, in and of itself, do anything. it isn't a magic bean. it's a conversation. not so different than a conversation between child and parent. kid asks for something. parent says yes, no, or later. struggling to see the confusion.0 -
Either prayer does something or it doesn't. That is a testable claim and up to this point we don't have any evidence that it does anything. We need testable and repeatable proof that it works and until we have that we should be concluding that prayer has not demonstrated any effectiveness.
prayer doesn't, in and of itself, do anything. it isn't a magic bean. it's a conversation. not so different than a conversation between child and parent. kid asks for something. parent says yes, no, or later. struggling to see the confusion.
Oh your are struggling to see the confusion? Let me illuminate it for you.
Matthew 21:22 states: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
Mark 11:24 states: "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
Luke 17:6 states: "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you."
All of this BS about the limitations of prayer are never mentioned in the bible. The bible gives the impression that prayer is very powerful indeed. The bible never mentions it as just being a conversation between parent and child and that yes, no and later stuff is also not in the bible. All of that is made up by believers that want to hold out some sort of hope that prayer is effective. It is made up by believers because they see that prayer does not work in reality also but they don't want to admit it so they try to make prayer untouchable.
Let us examine this yes, no and later claim. If I were to pray to my Pepsi bottle here what I ask for would either happen or not happen. If it happened I could say that the Pepsi bottle answered my prayer. If it doesn't happen I just say it is either no or later. Since no and later are indistinguishable from each other. So it is plain to see that yes, no and later are the exact same options you could claim for praying to anything.
Then you look at the actual testimonies that people tell me directly to my face. A women told me that her mother was in the hospital and the doctors did not have an optimistic outlook. They said they would do what they could but they were unsure that they would be able to save her. She said that they the family stood in a circle and prayed for the mother. She then said that her mother was walking the next day. This women was trying to convince me that prayer is effective. She definitely believed that prayer does do something.
So if you want to know where the confusion comes from. It comes from the fact that the bible and a sizable group of Christians disagree with you about prayer. Perhaps all the Christians could get together and come to an agreement about what the bible actually means when it says what is says about prayer. Until that day comes you should expect confusion because there is no real evidence you can present so it is just a bunch of people spouting contradictory claims.0 -
So if you want to know where the confusion comes from. It comes from the fact that the bible and a sizable group of Christians disagree with you about prayer. Perhaps all the Christians could get together and come to an agreement about what the bible actually means when it says what is says about prayer. Until that day comes you should expect confusion because there is no real evidence you can present so it is just a bunch of people spouting contradictory claims.
Just to be clear... are you atheist or agnostic? I'm confused. It would seem that some of your belief principles conflict as well.0 -
When we talk about gnosticism we are talking about what you know. Take for example the gnostic gospels. They got their name because their authors believed to have actual knowledge of god.
Just to be clear... are you atheist or agnostic? I'm confused. It would seem that some of your belief principles conflict as well.So if you want to know where the confusion comes from. It comes from the fact that the bible and a sizable group of Christians disagree with you about prayer. Perhaps all the Christians could get together and come to an agreement about what the bible actually means when it says what is says about prayer. Until that day comes you should expect confusion because there is no real evidence you can present so it is just a bunch of people spouting contradictory claims.
When we talk about theism we are talking about belief. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. Now armed with this new knowledge lets look at how this maps out with regard to all of us and in the interest of completely answering your question I will tell you where I am at and why I am there.
Gnostic Theist: I know that there is a God!!<= Hard Theist
Agnostic Theist: I don't know if there is a God or not but I believe that there is a God.<= Soft Theism
Agnostic Atheist: I don't know if there is a God or not but I don't believe that there is a God. <= Soft Atheism
Gnostic Atheist: I know that there is no God!<= Hard Atheism
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if there is or is not a god but I don't believe there is a god because I feel that such a belief can only be legitimate if it comes after I see evidence. If I were to say I believed before hand that would be dishonest.
I can be convinced. As soon as God meets the same level of evidence as radio waves I will become a theist that very moment. In fact I would become a Gnostic Theist and I would not have a choice in the matter really. In much the same way that I don't have a choice about being an Agnostic Atheist now.
Sure I could say I believe in God to win your approval and with my knowledge of the bible I could be quite convincing but that would be a farce. It would not be true genuine belief which in my mind is more than just a light switch. Now if there is no god I would have basically lived my life as a lie for nothing. If there is a god then I still lived my life as a lie for nothing and I would still go to hell because its not like God would be fooled by such a lie.
I think the best thing that I can do is be honest about my observations and follow the evidence where it leads me. I might die and still go to hell presuming that you are correct about God but that is a risk I have no choice but to take. I have to believe that if God is real that he would not only want us to believe in him but to believe in him for good reason and not simply to end an argument or to make a conversation go smoother or to make someone feel better about associating with you.
I care about what is true and actually exists in reality. I think that reality is going to be what it is regardless of what my opinions and beliefs are. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I believe that people's actions are informed by their beliefs. I think that some people have killed in the name of various gods throughout history and I know that not all of those gods were real. I never want to make a mistake like that.
I never want to make an important unchangeable decision involving my life or anyone's based on a belief in something that is not proven to be true. I would prefer to take actions while acknowledging that I don't know something than pretending that I do. That is where I am and that is why. If you think that puts some of my beliefs in conflict then feel free to explain why you believe that and we can delve in to it.0 -
When we talk about gnosticism we are talking about what you know. Take for example the gnostic gospels. They got their name because their authors believed to have actual knowledge of god.
Just to be clear... are you atheist or agnostic? I'm confused. It would seem that some of your belief principles conflict as well.So if you want to know where the confusion comes from. It comes from the fact that the bible and a sizable group of Christians disagree with you about prayer. Perhaps all the Christians could get together and come to an agreement about what the bible actually means when it says what is says about prayer. Until that day comes you should expect confusion because there is no real evidence you can present so it is just a bunch of people spouting contradictory claims.
When we talk about theism we are talking about belief. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. Now armed with this new knowledge lets look at how this maps out with regard to all of us and in the interest of completely answering your question I will tell you where I am at and why I am there.
Gnostic Theist: I know that there is a God!!<= Hard Theist
Agnostic Theist: I don't know if there is a God or not but I believe that there is a God.<= Soft Theism
Agnostic Atheist: I don't know if there is a God or not but I don't believe that there is a God. <= Soft Atheism
Gnostic Atheist: I know that there is no God!<= Hard Atheism
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if there is or is not a god but I don't believe there is a god because I feel that such a belief can only be legitimate if it comes after I see evidence. If I were to say I believed before hand that would be dishonest.
I can be convinced. As soon as God meets the same level of evidence as radio waves I will become a theist that very moment. In fact I would become a Gnostic Theist and I would not have a choice in the matter really. In much the same way that I don't have a choice about being an Agnostic Atheist now.
Sure I could say I believe in God to win your approval and with my knowledge of the bible I could be quite convincing but that would be a farce. It would not be true genuine belief which in my mind is more than just a light switch. Now if there is no god I would have basically lived my life as a lie for nothing. If there is a god then I still lived my life as a lie for nothing and I would still go to hell because its not like God would be fooled by such a lie.
I think the best thing that I can do is be honest about my observations and follow the evidence where it leads me. I might die and still go to hell presuming that you are correct about God but that is a risk I have no choice but to take. I have to believe that if God is real that he would not only want us to believe in him but to believe in him for good reason and not simply to end an argument or to make a conversation go smoother or to make someone feel better about associating with you.
I care about what is true and actually exists in reality. I think that reality is going to be what it is regardless of what my opinions and beliefs are. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I believe that people's actions are informed by their beliefs. I think that some people have killed in the name of various gods throughout history and I know that not all of those gods were real. I never want to make a mistake like that.
I never want to make an important unchangeable decision involving my life or anyone's based on a belief in something that is not proven to be true. I would prefer to take actions while acknowledging that I don't know something than pretending that I do. That is where I am and that is why. If you think that puts some of my beliefs in conflict then feel free to explain why you believe that and we can delve in to it.
I admire your principles. You just haven't been convinced and I get that. It is much better that you leave yourself open to the possibility than it is for you to pretend. I mean after all, the church doesn't need another hypocrite.
You may not like it when I say this, but I will be praying that you will get your evidence some day. Best wishes! You are a skilled debator!0 -
I don't get offended by every single mention of prayer. I am aware that sometimes when someone says "I'll pray for you." They are actually insulting me. Sometimes when someone says "Have a good day." they are actually saying "**** off." That does not mean that every mention of good day should be taken as an insult and I think it is the same way with "I'll pray for you."
You believe that you are actually talking to a god when you pray. Whether or not there is rational justification for that belief is a separate question. The fact is that you genuinely believe that you are talking to a god that has revealed himself to you and not to me. I see this as an act of benevolence even though I do not believe that there is an actual god to hear your prayers.
I thank you for your assessment of my debate skills. I have considered joining a toastmaster group a few times. I am on a real search for truth here and I am not simply trying to "win" a debate. Belief in anything should be withheld until evidence has been found.0 -
Either prayer does something or it doesn't. That is a testable claim and up to this point we don't have any evidence that it does anything. We need testable and repeatable proof that it works and until we have that we should be concluding that prayer has not demonstrated any effectiveness.
prayer doesn't, in and of itself, do anything. it isn't a magic bean. it's a conversation. not so different than a conversation between child and parent. kid asks for something. parent says yes, no, or later. struggling to see the confusion.
Oh your are struggling to see the confusion? Let me illuminate it for you.
Matthew 21:22 states: "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
Mark 11:24 states: "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
Luke 17:6 states: "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you."
All of this BS about the limitations of prayer are never mentioned in the bible. The bible gives the impression that prayer is very powerful indeed. The bible never mentions it as just being a conversation between parent and child and that yes, no and later stuff is also not in the bible. All of that is made up by believers that want to hold out some sort of hope that prayer is effective. It is made up by believers because they see that prayer does not work in reality also but they don't want to admit it so they try to make prayer untouchable.
Let us examine this yes, no and later claim. If I were to pray to my Pepsi bottle here what I ask for would either happen or not happen. If it happened I could say that the Pepsi bottle answered my prayer. If it doesn't happen I just say it is either no or later. Since no and later are indistinguishable from each other. So it is plain to see that yes, no and later are the exact same options you could claim for praying to anything.
Then you look at the actual testimonies that people tell me directly to my face. A women told me that her mother was in the hospital and the doctors did not have an optimistic outlook. They said they would do what they could but they were unsure that they would be able to save her. She said that they the family stood in a circle and prayed for the mother. She then said that her mother was walking the next day. This women was trying to convince me that prayer is effective. She definitely believed that prayer does do something.
So if you want to know where the confusion comes from. It comes from the fact that the bible and a sizable group of Christians disagree with you about prayer. Perhaps all the Christians could get together and come to an agreement about what the bible actually means when it says what is says about prayer. Until that day comes you should expect confusion because there is no real evidence you can present so it is just a bunch of people spouting contradictory claims.
It still wouldn't have been the prayer itself that did anything. It would have been, instead, the answer to that prayer.
And my dad? An amputee. If it matters.0
