Atheist Prayer

[Drew98]

arnulf:

No, my friend, God is not limited, but you and I are. In fact, we are so far from God that we are unable to know whether or not he hears our prayers.

If we know God is omniscient then we know he can hear our prayers. Are you saying you doubt that God is omniscient?

arnulf:

You are not likely to develop a friendship with God unless you are willing to spend time with him.

If I could get some sort of response from him I would certainly be willing to spend more time in prayer.

 

[Drew98]

Why wouldn’t I be able to? If I mistakenly believe my telephone is dead would I be unable to hear the dial tone if I pick it up and hold it to my ear?

Does it not occur to you that dial tone means nobody is listening on the other end?

Sure. But how is that relevant to our discussion?

I’ll try again because I really am interested in the answer: Why would a lack of belief in God prevent someone from hearing God?

 

[Drew98]

dolffn:

I would also recommend, if you havent already, do some reading on some athiests that have become Christian and writings that they may have written.
~Mike

Yea, you’d think an atheist-turned-Christian would have some special perspective that would really speak to me at a deep level. But my experience is that it never turns out that way. I find them no more convincing than someone who has been a Christian for life. C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel are two that come to mind.

 

[Drew98]

dolffn:

I understand that technically an atheist has chosen to reject the existence of God,

From my perspective it sure doesn’t seem like a choice. Sure, I could choose to lie and tell everyone I’m a believer. I may even be able work myself into a state of mind in which I convince myself I believe. But deep down I would know that I don’t really feel that the evidence I have supports the notion of God’s existence.

Do you feel that belief in God is a choice? Or do you feel you are compelled to believe by the weight of the evidence?

dolffn:

but does that limit them from recognizing the possiblity of God’s existence?

No. It doesn’t.

 

[wildlifer]

dolffn:

If God prevented everyone from doing evil then we wouldnt have free will and would be mere puppets. Malevolent? That doesnt seem to fit. If your child misbehaves, do you lock them in a cage for the remainder of their lives to prevent them from doing “evil” anymore? Seems like love and mercy fit in here.

~Mike

This free will and evil argument always seems to come up in these conversations and it seems obvious to me that if gods exist, evil is their construct and if they had not created evil, obstructing free will to do evil would not be an issue.

 

[OhioBob]

Drew98:

I’m an atheist who has been doing this for many years. And for me, the lack of a response is pretty strong evidence that God doesn’t exist…

How should I interpret this lack of response? I can think of five possible explanations…
Since the other possible explanations have been eliminated assertion #5 must be true.

Comments?

I would suggest a sixth reason that you might consider - that God has responded or will respond to your prayer, however, His response will come in His own way and His own time - which may be different than our way and our time. In that case, you would just have to have faith that God hears your prayers and someday you will know that your prayers were answered.

You probably already know about Blaise Pascal, but in the event you don’t, he was a mathematician and scientist who although arguably an athiest early in life, dedicated the later half of his life to religious study. Because his scientific and mathmatical background could not explain his religious faith, Pascal felt that faith was not logical, instead requiring personal devotion unsupported by scientific reasoning.

One of Pascal’s arguments to explain his religious devotion was known as Pascal’s Razor. His theory was that it made more sense to believe in God even if you could not be certain that He existed, than it did to deny the existence of God and risk the consequences at the end of life if he did indeed exist.

In other words: If you have faith and God doesn’t exist, there would be no eternal consequence; If you have faith and God does exist, then lucky for you :dancing: ;

If you do not have faith and God does not exist, then no harm no foul, however; If you do not have faith and God does exist, than you have made a rather poor choice concerning your eternal soul. :bigyikes:

I’m certainly not a philosopher, but maybe that could give you some reasons for continuing to pray even though you don’t see manifestations of God’s answers in your daily life.

I pray that if you sustain your faith, the answers will come.

Blessings.

 

[AnAtheist]

OhioBob:

If you do not have faith and God does not exist, then no harm no foul, however; If you do not have faith and God does exist, than you have made a rather poor choice concerning your eternal soul. :bigyikes:

Pascal’s wager contains 3 errors, therefore it is widely rejected.

1. error: It reduces the possible choices to two, where there may be dozens more, e.g.:
   a) there is a god, but no afterlife
   b) there is an afterlife, but no god
   c) God doesn’t care about us and sends everybody to hell
   d) God doesn’t care about us and sends everybody to heaven
   e) 105492 gods exist, one for every religion, and everybody gets, what he believes
   f) Odin, Thor et al. exist and only warriors who have died honorbly in battle go to heaven.
   g) Re-Incarnation is true.
2. error: It presupposes the christian God (partially responsible for error #1 too). Making the choice to believe in a diety does not automatically lead to christianity. The wager makes a cost-benefit analysis. You should - to be on a safe side - choose the religion with the worst hell and the most pleasant heaven. (That would be Islam then.)

3 error: Atheists don’t care about this one, but you christians should: If you base your faith on a cost-benefit analysis, do you really think, your God will honor that?

 

[PaulAckermann]

1. error: It reduces the possible choices to two, where there may be dozens more, e.g.:
   a) there is a god, but no afterlife
   b) there is an afterlife, but no god
   c) God doesn’t care about us and sends everybody to hell
   d) God doesn’t care about us and sends everybody to heaven
   e) 105492 gods exist, one for every religion, and everybody gets, what he believes
   f) Odin, Thor et al. exist and only warriors who have died honorbly in battle go to heaven.
   g) Re-Incarnation is true.

Supposed you went to the doctor and presented you with two options: to allow him to perform the surgery, in which you have a good chance to live, or to nopt allow him to preform surgery, in likley case you would die.

In this case, you respond smugly that your choice is really not as simplistic as that:

1. You have the doctor perform the surgery and still die. (similar to your point a)
2. You die in spite of having the surgery (see b)
3. The doctor would deliberately botch the operation, so that you die (see c).
4. The doctor would deliberately botch the operation, but you live (see d).
5. Any other doctor could perform the surgery.(see e)
6. Pray to Odin for healing (see f)
7. If you die, you will be re-incarnated (see g)

The doctor leaves and you feel good about yourself for totally destroying his simplistic propsal to you. You do not have the operation. And, in spite of your brilliant comeback to the doctor, in all probability, you will die.

In real life, we are face with decisions all the time that if we over-analyse them, we would be left in paralysis of indecision. Should we buy a car or not? Just because we are faced with many decision of what car we could buy, that decision is not made until we first make the decision we need a car. Should we go out to dinner? There are many different restaurants we could choose. But we choose first whether we should go out after all.

1. error: It presupposes the christian God (partially responsible for error #1 too). Making the choice to believe in a diety does not automatically lead to christianity. The wager makes a cost-benefit analysis. You should - to be on a safe side - choose the religion with the worst hell and the most pleasant heaven. (That would be Islam then.)

Pascal himself was writing in a culture where a person was basically exposed to only two options - basically Christrianity or atheism. The more we are exposed to other religions, the more this may not be the case.

But Pascal was only concerned about the first step, just as are first step of whether we should buy a car or not. He was only really concerned about the belief in God. Once we decide on the need for God, then can we can decide which car to buy.

The car we choose may be Islam, which is similar to a Ford (I personally had bad experiences with a Ford). It is certainly better than no car at all. The Catholic Church would teach that it is far better for you soul to be a Muslim and to not be religious at all (but, of course, not a Muslim terrorist). But it is not as reliable as other cars. The most reliable car is Christianity. But Pascal’s argument only deals with whether we need any car. Just as you may research consumer magazines to find out which car you should buy. In the same way, you would then research the other religions in order to see which vehicle isd the most reliable.

3 error: Atheists don’t care about this one, but you christians should: If you base your faith on a cost-benefit analysis, do you really think, your God will honor that?

I agree with you. Many people think that as long as they are not atheists, they will go to heaven. “Sure I will go to heaven. After all, I believe in God”. The Church teaches that even the devil believes in God, that does not mean he will be heaven.

God does not honor a “faith on a cost-benefit analysis”, He honors our obedience to Him. This is Catholic teaching.

Your argument about the absurdity about God honoring “faith on a cost-benefit analysis” is only valid to a Protestant, who believes in justification by faith only. Catholics believes that there is no honor in this kind of faith in and of itself. The honor only comes in our obedience. Faith is a pre-requisite to obedience.

 

[OhioBob]

AnAtheist:

3 error: Atheists don’t care about this one, but you christians should: If you base your faith on a cost-benefit analysis, do you really think, your God will honor that?

I never claimed to be a philosopher.

Pascal’s Razor (flawed or unflawed) was offered as a way of helping an athiest to maintain his prayer life in the absence of visual signs of God acknowledging his prayers.

I never meant to suggest that Christians either need it or should use it to support their faith. It seemed that the original poster was looking for help that didn’t rely on faith in Christ, so that is what I offered. But it certainly isn’t a substitute.

Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Accept no substitutes.

 

[AnAtheist]

PaulAckermann:

Supposed you went to the doctor and presented you with two options: to allow him to perform the surgery, in which you have a good chance to live, or to nopt allow him to preform surgery, in likley case you would die.
…]
In real life, we are face with decisions all the time that if we over-analyse them, we would be left in paralysis of indecision. Should we buy a car or not? Just because we are faced with many decision of what car we could buy, that decision is not made until we first make the decision we need a car. Should we go out to dinner? There are many different restaurants we could choose. But we choose first whether we should go out after all.

Yes, but we are not talking about a surgery, a car, or a dinner, we are talking about the fundamental principles of this universe. I detect some degree of difference here.

To illustrate the fallcy of dichotomy again with your example: “You can either by a car or go on foot to work.” There might be a bus or a train or a taxi or …

Or, from a protestants view: “You accept Jesus as your saviour and go to heaven. Or you go to hell.” What has happened to the good old Limbus?

Not to mention every possible choice is falsifying the result from the beginning if you do statistics, which Pascal seemed to do.

 

[Maggie]

4) God hears, understands and responds to me but I am unable to perceive the response.

Objection: Again, if God is omnipotent then he would surely be able to respond in a way that I could perceive.

Comments?

One… It’s called hardness of heart or spiritual blindness. God gives us free will, to accept or deny His very existence is the first activity in which we engage that freedom of will to it’s full extent.

If, over time, you demand an accouting of God without humility and reject His answers over and over, needing further and further proof from Him, you will not hear the answers you seek because you have made yourself deaf to His replies.

Let me try to put it a different way… You cannot prove God’s existence. It is not possible this side of Heaven, for then it would not require faith and we would no longer have free will. God IS capable of taking that free will from us, but chooses not to do so. So for you to demand proof from God requires of Him to remove from you your free will to believe in Him. You must have faith in the absence of proof, or it is not faith. Does that make sense? If you want absolute proof in God’s existence, you’ll have to wait until you are dead. Then you’ll know one way or the other.

Might I recommend a different question, since you do appear sincere in your search?
“My God, I do have faith in Your existence, and I am sincerely sorry that my lack of humility in my search for You has kept me from knowing You. My doubts have not been about You but about the world around me, the good that I know You created juxtaposed against the suffering and sorrow that I see around me has led me into doubt and I am sorry for the separation from You that that has led me into. Help me to understand how Your presence in this world is possible when I see around me both good and bad. Help me to recognize Your loving kindness and mercy, the beauty of Your creation.”

In other words, (since that got a little wordy ) try asking Him to help you with your belief in Him rather than to prove His existence.

 

[AnAtheist]

Maggie:

So for you to demand proof from God requires of Him to remove from you your free will to believe in Him. You must have faith in the absence of proof, or it is not faith. Does that make sense?

No it doesn’t. If god exists and he is omniscient, we do not have free will anyway. If at some point in my life I choose A over B, and God knew that even before he created the universe,
leads to the conclusion that God created this universe (incl. me) in a way that I am about to choose A. I do not really have a chance to choose B, or I would prove God’s knowledge of me choosing A wrong. Therefore my choice is predetermined by the way God build this universe. Therefore it is predetermined, who’s saved and who’s not - oh wait, I just reinvented Calvinism.

BTW, If the bible is true, your god has revealed himself to a bazillion of people, incl. the doubting Thomas. I demand the same.

 

[cradlecatholic]

I was discussing this thread with my husband and he suggested that you should be directing your prayers to Jesus because He is the One God wants us to go to for our salvation. He also seemed to think that the reason many atheists have difficulty acknowledging that there is a God is that they don’t acknowledge that there is sin, hence, they don’t acknowledge their need for a savior.

I found his points interesting, but have not yet had time to think about them at length. However, it does make me wonder, what is it that you want from God? He might be more inclined to make Himself known to you sooner rather than later if you were at a point in your life where you really needed and wanted His help rather than at a point where you felt like you could demand He make Himself known to you. A little humility might be helpful.

 

[Maggie]

AnAtheist:

No it doesn’t. If god exists and he is omniscient, we do not have free will anyway. If at some point in my life I choose A over B, and God knew that even before he created the universe,
leads to the conclusion that God created this universe (incl. me) in a way that I am about to choose A. I do not really have a chance to choose B, or I would prove God’s knowledge of me choosing A wrong. Therefore my choice is predetermined by the way God build this universe. Therefore it is predetermined, who’s saved and who’s not - oh wait, I just reinvented Calvinism.

BTW, If the bible is true, your god has revealed himself to a bazillion of people, incl. the doubting Thomas. I demand the same.

Let me see if I can do this, I don’t know if I am a strong enough debater but I will try. God exists. He exists outside of time, which is a human finite dimension. So your choices are made in a finite dimension. Can He see to the end of time whether you will choose A over B, yes. Does that mean He forces you to choose A over B? No. You still have a choice, whether you believe that you do or not. I can’t make these concepts clear because they are beyond me. I believe but I cannot prove. Nor do I feel obligated to do so. You can demand proof, but that is your choice and I am sorry for it. It’s an unfruitful one that you can blame on God, but it is nonetheless yours. Arguments won’t convince you. I felt you were truly searching, and I still think you are. God exists. If He weren’t calling you, you wouldn’t be here. Let go and listen.

 

[AnAtheist]

cradlecatholic:

He also seemed to think that the reason many atheists have difficulty acknowledging that there is a God is that they don’t acknowledge that there is sin, hence, they don’t acknowledge their need for a savior.
…]
However, it does make me wonder, what is it that you want from God?

Quite close, atheists do not acknowledge sin, therefore we do not need a saviour. But not believing in the christian god usually comes first. Sin as you understand is a religious concept, without a god it has no meaning.

What I want from a non-existing being? Hmm, nothing?

 

[AnAtheist]

Maggie:

Let me see if I can do this, I don’t know if I am a strong enough debater but I will try. God exists. He exists outside of time, which is a human finite dimension. So your choices are made in a finite dimension. Can He see to the end of time whether you will choose A over B, yes. Does that mean He forces you to choose A over B? No. You still have a choice, whether you believe that you do or not.

Do I really have a chance to choose B, when an omniscient being KNOWS I will choose A?

Let’s assume your God exists (you won’t have a philosophical problem with that, would you? ). I make my choices from what I observe. If the world around me and my perception of it was created by God, he deliberately built it in a way that I MUST choose A, because otherwise (universe different or my perception different) I would have chosen B. He must have known that I will choose A, when he constructs the universe that way. That is the same as predetermine the WHOLE cause of the universe.

There is of course a solution of the “God and free will exists”-dilemma: God is NOT omniscient/omnipotent, and the whole world is some miserable experiment of his. But then he isn’t the christian god anymore.

 

[Drew98]

OhioBob:

I would suggest a sixth reason that you might consider - that God has responded or will respond to your prayer, however, His response will come in His own way and His own time

It seems rather pointless for God to respond in a way that he knows I won’t be able to perceive. So I would lump that in with:

1. God hears and understands me but chooses not to respond.

As far as God responding in his own time - I suppose that’s possible but it seems certainly seems to indicate a lack of urgency.

OhioBob:

One of Pascal’s arguments to explain his religious devotion was known as Pascal’s Razor.

I think you mean Pascal’s Wager.

OhioBob:

In other words: If you have faith and God doesn’t exist, there would be no eternal consequence; If you have faith and God does exist, then lucky for you :dancing: ;

I have many objections to Pascal’s Wager but don’t have time to spell them all out here. It comes up so many times in these forums that it really deserves it’s own thread.

However, I will make one observation. It seems to contradict Catholic doctrine so I’m surprised so many Catholics advocate it. Specifically, the idea that professing a belief in the existence of God is enough to avoid hell and get into heaven. What about baptism? What about confession? What about making a concerted effort to avoid sinning?

Pascal seems to be saying that as long as you profess a belief in the existence of God you can live your life however you want and still get into heaven. Is that really what the Catholic Church teaches?

 

[ncgolf]

Pascal came up with a wager during a time of great un-belief. It was not used to promote the Catholic church but to get people to begin believing that existance of God was a reasonable alternative. Once that happened Catholic evangilaztion was able to convert many.

That is the strength of Pascals Wager. If you say that God is not possible then it is very hard to change your mind. Human pride makes it difficult to admit you were wrong. Pascals wager allows a person to say it is very possible that God does exist.

Drew98, I cannot for certainty deduce from your posts whether you are absolutely convinced there is no God or that it is possible but right now I cannot deduce His existance. Those are two very different perspectives. One is open to evidence and possiblity, ( I too have never seen God with my eyes but know that He is in my life) the other cannot change. God will never force you to accept His existance.

 

[AnAtheist]

ncgolf:

Pascal came up with a wager during a time of great un-belief.

17th century, time of great un-belief?
How many open un-believers lived in Europe in that time? Five?

ncgolf:

God will never force you to accept His existance.

No? But he throws me into hell and tortures me for all eternity, if I don’t. Isn’t that duress?

 

[Booger]

ncgolf:

Pascal came up with a wager during a time of great un-belief. It was not used to promote the Catholic church but to get people to begin believing that existance of God was a reasonable alternative. Once that happened Catholic evangilaztion was able to convert many.

That is the strength of Pascals Wager.

Once you know the flaws of Pascal’s Wager, it is easy to refute. For those who have not been exposed to the logical errors of Pascal’s Wager, it is probably very convincing.

If you say that God is not possible then it is very hard to change your mind. Human pride makes it difficult to admit you were wrong. Pascals wager allows a person to say it is very possible that God does exist.

I disagree. I think that reasoning, not pride leads to disbelief. If you reason out the characteristics of a god and find that god to be a walking contradicition, reason leads to the conclusion that it cannot exist. Not pride.
You are assuming that Pascal’s Wager leads one directly to capital God (Jesus/Yawheh) which may be have been the original intent, but it is also true that it leads to other competing god ideas such as the lower case general god concept, Allah, Vishnu, Osiris, or Athena.