show_no_mercy

Let's see if we can validate this analogy of yours:

Let's say we set up two independent tests. One is your scenario where the mother drives her kid by the ice cream shop every day and every day the kid asks for ice cream. Sometimes she obliges him, sometimes she doesn't.

How could we tell the difference if we replaced the mother with an automated, random program that stops for ice cream randomly? The boy and this robot still drive by the ice cream shop every day, the boy still asks for ice cream every day, but the robot can't hear the boy's requests and stops randomly.

How could you possibly tell the difference?

MadPhatCat

:banghead:
Oh excuse me. Since it is meant to reflect YOUR beliefs it is supposed to be analogous to you praying to your God. You were trying to present a valid analogy. But you didn't. And I'm wrong for correcting you!? :huh:

The Mom is there, in the flesh, direct evidence. YOUR God is not there, in the flesh, driving you around, changing your diaper etc;. Therefore, the Mom cannot be God in your analogy... God in the analogy is the unseen Aunt Bessie that your parents told you about. Since you attribute certain events as "answered prayer", and since you don't have God as a chauffer, then Mom isn't God, and your analogy isn't valid. This complaint has nothing to do with my beliefs or yours. The analogy doesn't work, unless you believe that you talk to God about how school went, and God cooks you dinner, and grounds you, and has sex with your father.

That's just one problem you have. Others have pointed other problems which you haven't dealt with either. btw, Good luck answering the question show_no_mercy just asked you.

K

ManM:

I think a better analogy would be the following:

A mother drives her son by an ice cream store on the way home from school. Every day the son asks for ice cream. One day, they get into a small fender bender in front of the ice cream store. The owner, feeling sorry for the boy gives him a free icecream. Does the boy's petition for ice cream work?

This is similar to "answered prayers" in that events look to be random, but there is absolutely no way to say for certain that petitions weren't anwered. Random events would clearly offer a better explanation. However, did the mother concoct this whole elaborate scheme with the store owner's participation just because she wanted to give her son ice cream, but thought it was best not to let him think he could pester her into giving in?

ManM

Finally, someone begins to see the real problem here. From the little boy's perspective, he would not be able to tell the difference between his mother's acts and a random program's acts. From the boy's perspective, she is acting unpredictably. The fact that she is acting unpredictably does not necessarily mean she is a robot. On top of that, we have a clear example of non-random entities acting in unpredictable ways: ourselves. I'm not trying to prove that it is a logical necessity to believe the mother is not a robot. I'm simply trying to establish the possibility that she is a person. It's an alternative hypothesis that explains the same evidence.

Let me guess, my analogy also isn't correct unless God suffers through PMS every month? :Cheeky:

Aha, another person gets it. While not all accounts of answered prayers are as convoluted as you make them out to be, you are still making my point. The appearance of randomness does not automatically imply randomness. I would still say that my analogy is closer to the experience of praying, “God, please give me X today�.

MadPhatCat

Incorrect, because, once again, you don't directly interact with the God like you do with a Mother. "God give me X today" is only analogous to your example if you claim God interacts with you on a daily basis, like a mother would. Does Jesus live in your house and do you dishes/cook you dinner etc;? The analogy would only be correct if you petition to Aunt Bessie, a person you've never physically seen, a person you don't have concrete, obvious evidence for. Anyway, that is the least of your problems:

Let's see, let me tell you something I read on these forums before. I hit you on the head with a frying pan. I think the damage to your skull and underlying tissue is due to the force of my cast iron pan hitting your noggin. You in your infinite wisdom, think that the pan opened a portal to the undetectable seventh dimension, which attracted supernatural pain gnomes to your head, causing magic damage.

It is an alternate hypothesis that explains the same evidence. Should I take you seriously?

Let's try this again. You pray. You think God answers your prayers. I say Bigfoot does. Or Elvis. Or Penn and Teller (they do have magical powers you know). Or hell, *I* answer them sometimes. They are all alternate hypothesis that explain the same evidence. And that gets you where exactly... to Goddidit? Even though you didn't say it explicitly, your answer to this:

Is that you CAN'T tell the difference. It could be random, it could not be. It could be the pain gnomes, or it could be the mass and acceleration of the frying pan hitting your head. Hell, it could be anything, right? Every hypothesis you can think of is possible.... therefore it could be that Goddidit/Bigfootdidit/Ididit/gnomesdidit etc;. But of course, you don't follow your own argument; you imply that only Goddidit. Please. With the reasoning you are putting forth here, you should be agnostic.

ManM

In my analogy, the only important interaction between the mother and son is the petition for ice cream (prayer) and the purchasing of ice cream (possible answer to prayer). That is the only interaction necessary to make my point. The analogy served its purpose.

Sure. Maybe it was really pain gnomes. Can you tell me a bit more about these pain gnomes? Where did they come from? How do you know about them? As it stands, your theory about the pain gnomes just isn't very useful. But, given that we are freethinkers here, we should be able to explore the issue deeper, right? :Cheeky:

Since you missed it, even though you quoted it:
You are so busy finding something to argue about that you are not even bothering to exercise reading comprehension. How could I imply that only God did it, when I specifically and clearly wrote that I was not trying to prove that God is the only possible explanation?

I fall under the classification of a weak agnostic.

Happy Wonderer

Two football teams pray for victory at the beginning of the championship game. Both are Christian. Did prayer work?

hw

MadPhatCat

You are an "Orthodox Christian". Did you forget to update your basic beliefs since you joined IIDB? Maybe you should put Orthodox Christian Agnostic in there. Or maybe you can explain your orthodoxy and your agnosticism to me so we are on the same page.

You believe God did it. That's your position. Of course, you aren't trying to prove it, you are just lamely saying it is possible. We can't rule it out completely. The big bad atheists are telling you it is a silly notion to believe in this, but you lamely keep harping that it is possible. That gets you a cookie, but doesn't support your belief in any way whatsoever. Well it supports your belief about as much as my belief that Elvis answers my prayers. Are you equating your belief in answered prayer from God to my hypothetical belief in Elvis answering mine? Is your position that your prayer belief is no better or worse than ones about Elvis, Allah, Me, Penn and Teller and so on? Yes or no? Seriously, answer this one for me.

As an Orthodox Christian I would imagine that you believe that the Christian God, not chance, not Elvis, answers your prayers. You imply anything is possible, but then choose to believe based on what exactly? Nothing. It could be Elvis. With respect to "answered" prayers you are agnostic as far as the knowledge goes, but why jump and believe Goddidit? What's your reasoning (if you have any)?

Ah ha. The agnostic theist complains about usefulness. So if it is "useful" to what, your daily life, controlling your fear of death, you'll believe one possibility over the other? You don't rule anything out, but you pick whichever is "useful" to you. I see. Agnostic Theists are funny like that. Gee, death sounds bad, I don't know what will happen, I don't think anyone can know, but hey I'll believe, I'll have faith that there is a heaven since it sounds nice. Wishful thinking. Cute.


PS - My apologies if you are an "orthodox christian" who believes that prayers are answered by Elvis instead of God.

Stephen T-B

Prayer works to the extent that it makes people feel comfortable, helps them cope with adversity, gives them a sense of receiving divine protection.
It's as good a psychological crutch as human beings have come up with.
It doesn't matter that they aren't always (or are hardly ever) answered. It's the praying bit that's important.
"I've asked for such-and-such and now it's in God's hands. He knows best. He'll do what's best, and the fact that I don't understand why it's for the best is a reflection on me - not on God."

See - it's waterproof.

ManM

Since I've addressed that topic before, and since it isn't relevant to the topic of prayer, I'll just post a link to another thread. Read my response to Columbus in this post and it will be clear as mud:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...98#post2288498

Based on pure reason, all of your beliefs about Elvis, Penn and Teller, etc, are quite possible. They just aren't very useful. Much like the idea of magical gnomes. Interesting theory, but not much meat behind it. Then again, I suppose you could always ask Penn and Teller if they are answering prayers. Let me know how that works out for you.

A belief in God makes more sense than the alternatives. Believing that everything is random may seem harmless in this particular discussion, but it has some unsatisfactory ramifications when discussing morality, the meaning of life, and free will.

Useful in daily life, useful for mental health, useful for scientific inquiry, useful for answering philosophical questions, etc... Why is it that you reject the gnomes of pain again? It's simpler to believe in the physics theory. It's more useful, right?