Ronin

I wouldn't even suggest a "high probability" is necessary, xaxxat...just a probability as in the recent mine tragedy.

Those men had a chance of survival while human rescuers intervened on their behalf for a few hours so petitioning for the intervention of a superbeing was somewhat safe.

There was an initial report that 12 men had survived and one had not = the assertion that prayers were answered and a miracle was bestowed by God.

Then it was learned that only one survived while 12 perished = prayers were answered, the men are now in Heaven (safe on the "otherside") and the survivor is asserted proof of a miracle bestowed by God.

It is important to note that pro-active action was still required by humans to try to fulfill the petitioners prayer to their God.

In other words, just prayer fails.

Curiously, not praying + pro-active action by humans to fulfill the petition to God nets the same result...good, bad or ambiguous to the human condition.

Now, if there is no probability that pro-active human intervention is possible (spontaneous regeneration of a human limb) = no prayer or potential for "miracle" is offered.

The key element is pro-active human intervention, not prayer.

No God(s)ess(es) present or required.

xaxxat

It is important to note that pro-active action was still required by humans to try to fulfill the petitioners prayer to their God.

In other words, just prayer fails.



That's what I've observed too. And I think it weird that the pro-active action is the one that gets discounted. An xtian co-worker recently told me that his church's prayers had cured his wife of cancer. So I said, "Gave up on the chemo-therapy, huh?" He replied, "Oh, no. We kept that up too..."

Aradia

Only if omniscience includes knowledge of the future. Otherwise, god may _predict_ what will happen after his intervention, but it's only a prediction. If his prediction starts to turn sour, he could certainly intervene again, but then he's creating the future, not knowing the future. This "omniscience without knowledge of the future" is what's been discussed these past few posts, so it shouldn't be discounted. =)

FWIW, I don't eat porridge, so I can't say whether salt or honey makes it tastier.

Agnostic Theist

Open Theism is a doctrine that God sacrificed having knowledge of the future on order for us to have free will. Assuming the truth of the PAP (Principle of Alternative Possibilities) Open Theists argue that, since we have free will, portions of the future concerned with our choices are entirely contingent, ergo non truth-apt.

Due to this, God lacks knowledge of the future. This does not conflict with omniscience, unless you argue that future propositions are truth-apt which conflicts with Open Theism (and takes you toward Ockhamism).

God not knowing if His intervention will be good or bad does not contradict omniscience just so long as the consequence of His intervention are future contingent, in which case based on non truth-apt propositions.

E.g. - P If God saves the child she will learn to swim and teach others to swim

P* If God saves the child she will be the cause of a moterway pileup, killing 8 people

Before He acts, how can we determine, in a non-deterministic world, whether P or P* is true? If either one is true now, then it must be true in virtue of the future event being set to happen.

TomboyMom

Once again, for Pastor Mark and anyone else who asserts that "Prayer works." When you say that prayer works, do you mean that praying for something to happen increases the likelihood that it will happen, such as a sick person recovering, miners being saved, or someone you care about arriving home safely? If not, what do you mean?

Trout

Complete bunk in my opinion (prayer) but, my Mom likes to do it and often tells me she's "thinking" of me while engaged with the whole thing. Last refuge of the truly desperate I think.

It used to piss me off but now, ahh screw it. It's not causing me any direct harm so let people who cannot be swayed to reason continue with their superstitions so long as they do not negatively involve my life.

functor

Overall, I think this is the best position for theists to adopt. However, it's not without its problems. Most obviously, it contradicts the idea the god is unchanging, since clearly his knowledge is constantly changing as we move toward the future. Worse, it scales down omniscence, by making god the same kind of temporal being that we are. God can only directly influence the present. But I think what really makes this difficult to maintain is the fact that because simultaneity is frame dependent, there is no preferred way to divide the past from the future. But you seem to need one for this theory to work, because you have to decide what god knows, which is the state of affairs of the universe in the "past" and the "present".