Lack of Questioning Leads to Atheism?

[inocente]

Which explains the low entropy conditions of this universe which is the only way in which life can be sustained based on our known laws of physics.

If Penrose agreed with you that he’d made a ‘miraculous physical proof of God’ then he wouldn’t carry on being an atheist. And if the world agreed with you, the ‘proof’ would have been shouted from the rooftops and Penrose would have got a Nobel. But nope. Ask yourself whether you spotted something the whole world missed, or whether you might be mistaken .

inocente;14358927:

But any scientist will tell you his theory is not even wrong.

Are you implying that every scientist agrees that Penrose’s theory is correct or are you saying that any given scientist will not say this his or her own theory is wrong>

Sorry, see an explanation of the phrase here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You could ask an exorcist - or you could buy any number of books and video recordings published by various exorcists.

In other words, you have no idea. Do they describe the method to do the evocation? And then the methods to expel the demons? And then the methods to ensure that the demon is gone? After all the prospective exorcists need practice, and it is not obvious that there will be a necessary number of demons to practice upon. So one would assume that there is a method to get the necessary testing material.

Summoning a demon isn’t an experiment anyone should try, unless you really want a first-hand look at how an exorcism works - assuming you’re found in time, and people figure out what’s wrong with you.

For scientific purposes it would be an invaluable test. Doctors routinely infected themselves with certain maladies to test new vaccinations.

God and the angels are not natural forces - they are persons, and have the same wide variety of possible reactions as any of the people you know. It’s unlikely that you would get the same result twice any more than repeating the same statement to a friend over and over gets the same result every time.

Nonsense. Go and visit the “Prayer Intentions” forum and see the repetitions of supplicatory prayers. The petitioners all hope to get a positive result. As long as those prayers are not intended to test God, they are allowed and encouraged. Only the prayers to test God are forbidden. Have you ever wondered, why?

 

[PRmerger]

IAs long as those prayers are not intended to test God, they are allowed and encouraged. Only the prayers to test God are forbidden.

Well…yeah.

Have you ever wondered, why?

Because, God.

Wondering why one can’t test God demonstrates an impoverished understanding of God.

Now, if one imagines God as a “Superhero, only more awesome”, then one could wonder why it’s wrong to test God.

But…that’s not God.

As atheist BC Johnston says: “Such a God, if not dead, is the next thing to it. And a person who believes in such a ghost of a god is practically an atheist. To call such a thing a god would be to strain the meaning of the word.”

 

[jmcrae]

In other words, you have no idea. Do they describe the method to do the evocation? And then the methods to expel the demons? And then the methods to ensure that the demon is gone? After all the prospective exorcists need practice, and it is not obvious that there will be a necessary number of demons to practice upon. So one would assume that there is a method to get the necessary testing material.

I didn’t say I don’t know. Exorcists are apprenticed with experienced exorcists. Father Ianuzzi apprenticed with Father Amorth in Rome. I have attended Father Ianuzzi’s lectures and I have read Father Amorth’s books. They are quite detailed.

Nonsense. Go and visit the “Prayer Intentions” forum and see the repetitions of supplicatory prayers. The petitioners all hope to get a positive result. As long as those prayers are not intended to test God, they are allowed and encouraged. Only the prayers to test God are forbidden. Have you ever wondered, why?

It’s for the same reason that you don’t exasperate your mother or your boss with nonsense requests.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It’s for the same reason that you don’t exasperate your mother or your boss with nonsense requests.

God has a finite attention span and energy level?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I didn’t say I don’t know. Exorcists are apprenticed with experienced exorcists. Father Ianuzzi apprenticed with Father Amorth in Rome. I have attended Father Ianuzzi’s lectures and I have read Father Amorth’s books. They are quite detailed.

Do they give demonstrations? Do they give instructions about how to make a demon manifest itself? I am not interested in generalities. Get me some factual instructions, if you have any.

It’s for the same reason that you don’t exasperate your mother or your boss with nonsense requests.

I think the reason is much simpler. Any well-designed test will come back with a negative result.

 

[PRmerger]

God has a finite attention span and energy level?

This is a nonsequitur, JK.

“A finite attention span and energy level” does not follow from an analogy to not pestering our parents.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This is a nonsequitur, JK.

“A finite attention span and energy level” does not follow from an analogy to not pestering our parents.

If you take “pester” to mean “deliberately antagonize” then no. But no one is talking about deliberately antagonizing God. It’s more like the kid who keeps innocently asking “why” about every explanation his parents give him. Parents will eventually be pestered by the behavior, but there is no reason for an infinite being to ever get to that point. There is nothing God can run out of, and running out of patience or explanations is the only reason such questioning becomes an issue for human parents/

 

[PRmerger]

If you take “pester” to mean “deliberately antagonize” then no. But no one is talking about deliberately antagonizing God. It’s more like the kid who keeps innocently asking “why” about every explanation his parents give him. Parents will eventually be pestered by the behavior, but there is no reason for an infinite being to ever get to that point. There is nothing God can run out of, and running out of patience or explanations is the only reason such questioning becomes an issue for human parents/

As I am wont to say, scratch an atheist…find a fundamentalist.

Try not to think of the analogy with the lens of a fundamentalist.

You have to think in the abstract a bit more when understanding analogies, JK.

 

[e_c]

If you take “pester” to mean “deliberately antagonize” then no. But no one is talking about deliberately antagonizing God. It’s more like the kid who keeps innocently asking “why” about every explanation his parents give him. Parents will eventually be pestered by the behavior, but there is no reason for an infinite being to ever get to that point. There is nothing God can run out of, and running out of patience or explanations is the only reason such questioning becomes an issue for human parents/

And yet Jesus encourages “pestering.” How much does a person really want something if he doesn’t pester?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

As I am wont to say, scratch an atheist…find a fundamentalist.

Try not to think of the analogy with the lens of a fundamentalist.

You have to think in the abstract a bit more when understanding analogies, JK.

Look, my interpretation of the analogy is the most charitable one available. Saying “you need to be more abstract” without any further explanation is just a way of saying “I can’t defend this, please just concede the point.”

The real basis for that analogy was this:

VL: God is happy to answer prayers, just not prayers that are part of a test. Why?

JMC: You shouldn’t test God for the same reason that you shouldn’t exasperate your mother or your boss with nonsense requests.

So what is that reason? I see 2 possibilities:

1. Because they have finite resources, and you shouldn’t waste them.
2. Because nonsense requests are by definition things you shouldn’t ask of people.

Now you’ve rejected my interpretation as “fundamentalist” so you must believe interpretation #2. But as I said before, that is the less charitable interpretation. Why?

Because that means that the analogy is assuming that any kind of prayers involved in testing God are insincere and/or nonsense. But that is a point which requires argumentation and cannot simply be assumed. If we take this view of the analogy, then all the analogy does is hide the fact that this assumption is being made; i.e. appealing to analogy was an intellectually dishonest tactic (this is not to say that JMC was being deliberately deceptive.)

 

[JapaneseKappa]

And yet Jesus encourages “pestering.” How much does a person really want something if he doesn’t pester?

Sure, so you’re endorsing the definition of “pester” that does not mean “deliberately antagonize,” just as I was.

 

[Aloysium]

Some posters on the atheistic end of the faith spectrum seem to be confused as to the nature of prayer. In God’s own words:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

 

[jmcrae]

If you take “pester” to mean “deliberately antagonize” then no. But no one is talking about deliberately antagonizing God. It’s more like the kid who keeps innocently asking “why” about every explanation his parents give him. Parents will eventually be pestered by the behavior, but there is no reason for an infinite being to ever get to that point. There is nothing God can run out of, and running out of patience or explanations is the only reason such questioning becomes an issue for human parents/

By “pester” I mean the whole situation with, “God prove you exist. Make the sun turn green.”

[Sun turns green]

“Oh, but God, there was a scientific explanation for that. Prove you exist by making something bad happen to someone I don’t like.”

[Nothing happens, because God isn’t going to do that.]

Atheist: “See? God doesn’t exist. I knew it!”

God:

 

[PRmerger]

Look, my interpretation of the analogy is the most charitable one available.

Ok. But that’s another nonsequitur.

No one said your interpretation wasn’t “charitable”.

I said you were unable to understand it in the abstract.

Saying “you need to be more abstract” without any further explanation is just a way of saying “I can’t defend this, please just concede the point.”

Well, if you don’t understand how “abstract” applies here, in an analogy, you’ve just proved my point, right?

 

[PRmerger]

God:

I wonder if there’s going to be a tributary about how God can actually shrug.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

By “pester” I mean the whole situation with, “God prove you exist. Make the sun turn green.”

You know, I actually tried something similar, when I was still very young. But instead of asking for something nonsensical, like turning the Sun green, or requesting a million bucks, I asked something that was supposed to be in synch with God’s “desire”. I asked for goodwill and peace on Earth. I asked to help the downtrodden, to heal the sick and feed the hungry. And I prayed as earnestly and honestly as only a young child can.

And… what a surprise - nothing happened. (That was the first step on my way to lose faith.)

Of course, back then, I did not know that there are only two kinds of “supplicatory” prayers that are welcomed by God. The first kind, which cannot be verified, for example to pray for salvation. The second kind, which has an overwhelming probability to come true, like asking for snow during a winter blizzard.

Try to ask for something, which is very unlikely to happen, and I am willing to make a substantial bet, that the prayer will go unheeded. Funny thing is that efficacy of supplicatory / intercessory prayers has been tested, quite a few times. The results were always negative. The only rational conclusion is that God does not care. And believers simply shrug it off. Once in a blue moon someone asks for a very unlikely result, and it happens. Among zillions of daily supplicatory prayers, a few are bound to seem to be fulfilled. These are all touted as examples of “God listens, and fulfills the request”. The rest is swept under the rug. If the efficacy of drugs would be decided by a similar protocol, we all would be in deep trouble.

 

[e_c]

Try to ask for something, which is very unlikely to happen, and I am willing to make a substantial bet, that the prayer will go unheeded. Funny thing is that efficacy of supplicatory / intercessory prayers has been tested, quite a few times. The results were always negative. The only rational conclusion is that God does not care. And believers simply shrug it off. Once in a blue moon someone asks for a very unlikely result, and it happens. Among zillions of daily supplicatory prayers, a few are bound to seem to be fulfilled. These are all touted as examples of “God listens, and fulfills the request”. The rest is swept under the rug. If the efficacy of drugs would be decided by a similar protocol, we all would be in deep trouble.

Come on a mental walk with me, Vera.

Suppose God is real, is alive, is smart, and does not want to play these games, as He in fact says all over Scripture (like that whole “putting God to a test” thing with the Temptations of Christ).

Why would He indulge these experiments?

The next question would be, “Why doesn’t God want people to believe in Him by doing tricks?” And then, we can take a look at all the examples (in Scripture and besides) of all sorts of tricks not working - which is a sign that faith is something beyond a convergence of probabilities. And there are also those same Temptations, where Christ refuses to solve world hunger, refuses to fly around Jerusalem “proving” that He is God, then refuses the chance to take back the world from the devil who reigns over it by the exercise of his free, God-given power. No - God wants something more invisible, more subtle, and ultimately much more beautiful.

The final question is, “Why doesn’t God just create us in Heaven?” Because it destroys the possibility of the great good of glory.

 

[e_c]

The Bible is a collection of writs: 1) created by unknown people
2) selected by the early members of the church
3) where the selection was based on “voting”
4) filled with historical,
5) mathematical and
6) scientific errors,
7) none of the pertinent events described has been authenticated by other contemporary authors,
8) and also contains many contradictions
Is that the evidence you refer to?

Lol, I just saw this one. It’s a trip Vera!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Come on a mental walk with me, Vera.

Suppose God is real, is alive, is smart, and does not want to play these games, as He in fact says all over Scripture (like that whole “putting God to a test” thing with the Temptations of Christ).

Why would He indulge these experiments?

Because he wants us to have an accurate picture of who he is and what he wants?
Of course everyone has been proposing strawman tests like turn the sun green which wouldn’t be useful, but people who were serious about asking questions would come up with more informative and less onerous tests.

The next question would be, “Why doesn’t God want people to believe in Him by doing tricks?” And then, we can take a look at all the examples (in Scripture and besides) of all sorts of tricks not working - which is a sign that faith is something beyond a convergence of probabilities. And there are also those same Temptations, where Christ refuses to solve world hunger, refuses to fly around Jerusalem “proving” that He is God, then refuses the chance to take back the world from the devil who reigns over it by the exercise of his free, God-given power. No - God wants something more invisible, more subtle, and ultimately much more beautiful.

I mean, there are all kinds of allegations of tricks, from an era when people were gullible and ignorant and tricks were popular. And people today aren’t demanding tricks, they’re just demanding consistent and measurable behavior.