Prayer is an illusion

[Diddi]

And Diddi, your quaint anecdote’s miracle is a non-miracle. He always had that auto all along. Is that how you will save the concept of answered prayers? Miracles are the non-miracles around you?

Quite clever, 'cause there aren’t any. So since there aren’t any, let’s call these non-miracles “miralces”. That’s wanting to believe in unicorns no matter what.

The religious meme contains praises for faith in the face of non-evidence, incoherencies and absurdities, that way you’ll cling on always as a test of faith.

But then, did you ever consider that when all is said and done, you will end up with just that-- non-miralces, incoherences and absurdities?

Truly, believing in the unlikely is inviting belief in the untrue.

Gotcha! You’re limited to thinking that God is bound by physical restraints. The story didn’t say that Chris was crazy. It said the miracles did happen. Chris didn’t own the car until the trip, then God, who is all powerful, changed the past so only Chris knew the miracle that happened. The god you don’t believe in is a wimp. I don’t believe in that god either. God bless you.

In Christ,

Diddi

p.s. For some unfanthomable reason, God wants us to have faith (trust). If He made the miracle happen so that everybody could see that it was a miracle, then the faith (trust) requirement would be gone for these other people. You don’t have to abandon you intellect or your doubt. I didn’t. It’s your actions that show your faith; your trust is your faith; your belief can come later. I went right on doubting after I gave myself to Christ but I gave myself and asked God to put me where He wanted to and I would go; I went ahead and gave up something, in trust, and God has rewarded me with miracles I can believe. What makes me smile is His sense of humor. You will need your own miracles to believe, then you will understand what I mean. God Love ya.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Originally Posted by LogosSokratikos
And Diddi, your quaint anecdote’s miracle is a non-miracle. He always had that auto all along. Is that how you will save the concept of answered prayers? Miracles are the non-miracles around you?

1. I am not attributing physical constraints to God, I am holding the God concept accountable, that’s all.

The story didn’t say that Chris was crazy.

1. I did not say Chris was crazy. I don’t know if my interpretation of the story is clear, I thought it said the car he found was his all along. If it was his all along, it was his all along. No miracle, according to the story itself.

The story …] It said the miracles did happen. Chris didn’t own the car until the trip, then God, who is all powerful, changed the past so only Chris knew the miracle that happened.

1. It’s a story, yes.

The god you don’t believe in is a wimp. I don’t believe in that god either.

The biblical God isn’t a wimp, that is true. His first idea for elliminating “sin” in the world was to drown everyone. A wimp doesn’t do that. Nor does a reasonable, sane person, for that matter.

p.s. For some unfanthomable reason, God wants us to have faith (trust).

People who preach and books written by them tell you God wants you to have faith. Curiously enough, conmen do too. For you it might be a coincidence, for me it’s fishy. Fishy enough to say “Whoa, there!”

If He made the miracle happen so that everybody could see that it was a miracle, then the faith (trust) requirement would be gone for these other people.

You haven’t really read my posts, have you? The gospels say “ask and thou shalt recieve”. How many people of faith pray and don’t get it done? The requirement is fulfilled, the promise hasn’t.

You don’t have to abandon you intellect or your doubt. I didn’t. It’s your actions that show your faith; your trust is your faith; your belief can come later. I went right on doubting after I gave myself to Christ but I gave myself and asked God to put me where He wanted to and I would go; I went ahead and gave up something, in trust, and God has rewarded me with miracles I can believe. What makes me smile is His sense of humor. You will need your own miracles to believe, then you will understand what I mean. God Love ya.

You say “I gave myself to Christ and asked God…” How did you do that if you didn’t believe? Who puts on trunks and sunblock in the middle of the night? No they do it in the day, because they believe the sun is out. Likewise, if you did what you say, you already had faith.
Also, by saying “I gave myself to Christ and asked God…” you are saying you trust him, in other words, you are purposefully abandoning your doubts in favor of the unseen. Therefore you are giving an example that “You don’t have to abandon you intellect or your doubt” is untrue.
“What makes me smile is His sense of humor”, you say. When you ask for right and he gives you left, you call that “humor”. That’s not “humor”, that’s called negative outcome. You truly did abandon your intellect to be able to take any outcome as a positive outcome!

You will need your own miracles to believe, then you will understand what I mean. God Love ya.

I don’t intend to lower my standards. With a net big enough, you can even catch an elephant. With standards so low, a cruise liner could go through.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

When pondering the power of prayer, I would say the majority of people question the God who didn’t answer them too well while neglecting the person (themselves) who didn’t ask too well.

To put my non-Phd-certified statement in perspective, take a football game with hundreds in attendance on either side. Out of those hundreds of spectators, there’s bound to be at least some family and friends on either side praying their hearts out that the other side misses the ball, leaving them the victors (I confess I’ve done it before ). Now, is God going to take a tally of how many people on each side are praying and act according to which ever side is praying the most? What if one side has a player whose mom just had heart-attack? What if the other a stroke? Who gets the divine intervention???

Unless there’s some real profound cause or moral lesson at stake, probably NO ONE ! You could be praying and praying for the job of your life, but who knows why the other guy might need it more. Ultimately, prayer should be a two-way dialogue, with the praying-person living his life for God in the same way He lived his life for us.

I’ll be honest and say I don’t exactly know the whole purpose of prayer (feel free to enlighten me ), but what I do know is that God already understands our true needs. It even says so in Mathew.

Ultimately, I believe God works through us to answer other people’s prayers, regardless of whether you believe or not.

 

[Diddi]

I understand that it won’t sound nice at all, but, in general, if you throw away logic any belief is possible.

Thanks for the “powerful”, but I wouldn’t put someone like me on that pedestal. I’m just doing some socratic dialogue. Do you mean I’m doing it well? If so, thanks!

Your prayers are appreciated, notwithstanding the title of the thread, they reveal goodwill and a warm, open heart.

Cheers,
Lógos Sokratikós

Hi Logos,

You remind me of my friend in college who shared my office with me. He was working on his masters, I was just beginning my PhD, in Biology. We were both atheists, only he was more aggressively so than I. One day, he was working with his insect cultures that he kept in glass shell vials. He was conducting a comparative study of parthenogenetic and sexual populations of insects – trying to induce matings and compare the phenotypes of sibling species. (He never got the statistics right, no matter how patiently I tried to explain that he needed to do an overall ANOVA to validate his student t tests.) He dropped a vial on the floor that day and it broke, and maybe fifty or a hundred hours of work flew away. The next week, at maybe two in the morning, I heard a crash of glass behind me while I worked in the office. He had thrown a vial purposely at the floor and said to me, “I have found that if you don’t sacrifice to the glass gods, they will take their own.”

Shortly later, he got mad at the world and I was handy, so he sabotaged my research by putting cigarette ashes in all my culture plates. My main interest was in the evolution of holometaboly in insects and in the evolution of flight. Drosophila melanogaster, which as you know is a mainstay of genetic research, has complete metamorphosis, but it had been pointed out to me by our major professor, another atheist who I love, that heterometabolous insects appeared to be less fixed phenotypically and I soon saw that this was apparent in the frequency of wing anomalies. I was in the process of establishing a culture protocol for a species to facilitate genetic studies and was in the process of isolating and identifying the fungi that made up its diet. It required sterile technique and my friend destroyed several hundred hours of my work. I was called into the department office to give evidence for his expulsion from school, but instead I said I forgave him and plead his case. He graduated. Thus began one of the best friendships of my life. I truly love the man and was proud to see him all spruced up at my Church wedding.

I’m not saying you would sabotage someone’s research. I’m saying that your arguments sound like his argument about religion. Sometimes, I would get perturbed at him when he would taunt and verbally play with the “born again students” who would come to our office to try to argue for God with us. (We were both grad asses. ) It would break my heart; they were such easy targets. It was pathetic. They were so naive; they didn’t even know what everybody was laughing at and would smile wide-eyed as they were being lampooned.

What I’m trying to say is that I’m sure you are a likable person and would be a lot of fun to be around. Yes, you’re doing well. It brings back fond memories. Thanks for appreciating my prayers. God bless. I hope someday you get your miracles! Maybe someday you can join the ex-atheist fools for Christ with miracles to boot club. Hope to see you in heaven!

In Christ,

Diddi

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Right. Your dogmas are just much more recent than ours, which somehow makes them more legitimate. If this isn’t immediately obvious to everyone, they are clearly fools. Btw, how many of your “free” thinking friends are determinists? Lol!

Who established freethought dogmas? How is it that testing reality and subjecting beliefs to the test putting them in danger of refutation, is dogma? Where is it written, where was it decided what I “must” believe? Where is the freethought catechism?

By the same token, how is Cath dogma established, via observation and testing, or in councils where they pray for guidance instead of verification? How did they test, how did they contrast the assumption of Mary? Why haven’t other Churches adopted it? When Pasteur proposed the germ theory from repeated observation and experimentation, others tested it too, and discarded rival hypotheses, however dear to them.

Other churches don’t “buy” Cath dogma innovations because there is no intesubjective testing and confirming. How does sitting and pondering dressed in red at Vatican or at Trent and “vote” for the structure of the hereafter, to empirical research that wins agreements by virtue of tangible proof?

If there is empirical testing, that isn’t dogma. Dogma is when you are told to believe something not intended to be discarded by empirical research.

They should have paid me the millions and I could have told them that God doesn’t grant every request that’s made of him.

That is the point, experience shows that “Ask and thou shalt receive” is not true.

I also find it interesting that anyone would presume that they could find a statistically significant correlation between prayer and the decision of a perfectly free entity,

… that is not bound by its promises. If the entity is free to fulfil it’s word or not, it is dishonest. But if by definition the entity is good, then, it is neither good or it just isn’t there.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Hi Logos,

You remind me of my friend in college who shared my office with me. He was working on his masters, I was just beginning my PhD, in Biology. We were both atheists, only he was more aggressively so than I. One day, he was working with his insect cultures that he kept in glass shell vials. He was conducting a comparative study of parthenogenetic and sexual populations of insects – trying to induce matings and compare the phenotypes of sibling species. (He never got the statistics right, no matter how patiently I tried to explain that he needed to do an overall ANOVA to validate his student t tests.) He dropped a vial on the floor that day and it broke, and maybe fifty or a hundred hours of work flew away. The next week, at maybe two in the morning, I heard a crash of glass behind me while I worked in the office. He had thrown a vial purposely at the floor and said to me, “I have found that if you don’t sacrifice to the glass gods, they will take their own.”

Shortly later, he got mad at the world and I was handy, so he sabotaged my research by putting cigarette ashes in all my culture plates. My main interest was in the evolution of holometaboly in insects and in the evolution of flight. Drosophila melanogaster, which as you know is a mainstay of genetic research, has complete metamorphosis, but it had been pointed out to me by our major professor, another atheist who I love, that heterometabolous insects appeared to be less fixed phenotypically and I soon saw that this was apparent in the frequency of wing anomalies. I was in the process of establishing a culture protocol for a species to facilitate genetic studies and was in the process of isolating and identifying the fungi that made up its diet. It required sterile technique and my friend destroyed several hundred hours of my work. I was called into the department office to give evidence for his expulsion from school, but instead I said I forgave him and plead his case. He graduated. Thus began one of the best friendships of my life. I truly love the man and was proud to see him all spruced up at my Church wedding.

I’m not saying you would sabotage someone’s research. I’m saying that your arguments sound like his argument about religion. Sometimes, I would get perturbed at him when he would taunt and verbally play with the “born again students” who would come to our office to try to argue for God with us. (We were both grad asses. ) It would break my heart; they were such easy targets. It was pathetic. They were so naive; they didn’t even know what everybody was laughing at and would smile wide-eyed as they were being lampooned.

What I’m trying to say is that I’m sure you are a likable person and would be a lot of fun to be around. Yes, you’re doing well. It brings back fond memories. Thanks for appreciating my prayers. God bless. I hope someday you get your miracles! Maybe someday you can join the ex-atheist fools for Christ with miracles to boot club. Hope to see you in heaven!

In Christ,

Diddi

Instead of your stories, why not tackle my arguments and pin them to the ground? Am I in the wrong forum? Does anyone have the slightest idea of what I’m talking about? One guy gives me anecdotes, the other says beliefs based on empirical testing are dogmas and thus rewriting the dictionary (Like saying “Dogs are cats. You said woof but it’s really meow: you lose”), another says… ok everybody else is doing the anecdote thing too. As if every other religion didn’t have anecdotes.

-Sigh!-

 

[whatevergirl]

Historicity? That is disputed, at best. And also, searching historical and archaeological evidence to support what? The gospel accounts? Try explaining this. There is no evidence for which the texts contradict each other. Really, what did happen at easter? In a court of law, when someone is contradicting him/herself telling their account, they usually declare the account untrustworthy and discard it.

but they usually swear over a Bible. LOL

 

[LogosSokratikos]

**I’ve said all I had to say on this thread. For anyone interested, you can read my old posts till #68, the rest are discardable. **

See you around, guys.

 

[Sixtus]

LogosSokratikos

Re: Prayer is an illusion.
Quote:Originally Posted by Sixtus
God is so close that if He got any closer, we would cease to be us but Him!

That’s just an excuse. Did Thomas cease to be Thomas just because Jesus appeared to him and put his finger in his wounds? No.

Quote:Originally Posted by Sixtus
You have no idea what you are asking for. If we were exposed to His inifinate all powerful majestic Glory would be too much for us, it would simply crush us out of existence

That’s like watching too much TV! It’s “Jesus, appear to me and all my doubts will disappear”, not “Jesus, fall upon me squarely, I can take your body weight at a standard acceleration of 9.80665 m·s−2”.

Quote:Originally Posted by Sixtus
For the moment He appears distant. That is our chance to come to know Him by faith that our faith may be proven and tested.

LogosSokratikos replied:
The deal, therefore, is: Believe the unlikely unreasonable unseen, and you will avoid eternal torture. Believe in the right religion (one in hundreds), and live, believe in the wrong one and suffer… make the wrong decision and it’s barbecue time.

Right. An all-loving God, with a keen sense of …salvation that includes an eternity-long torture of which he doesn’t intend to let you out, and it calls it, of all things, mercifulness… then I will judge you for doubting and send you to hell for all time -LOL!) allelluia"

Had our friend stuck around, I would have said that I cannot argue with his philosophy, but I can vouch for the promise of our Blessed Lord, that prayer IS answered in MY experience, with astonishing reliability, that I would argue: ‘make sure the thing you are praying for is what you really want as you are the one who has to live with it’!

That our Blessed Lord choses to answer the prayers of an unworthy sinful wretch like me, how much more so then for those more worthy!

It is a great shame that our friend did not try to suspend his view of God and pray with the certain hope of being granted for that which he asked. Then having the confidence to 'thank God for listening to his prayer and granting what he asked before it was given. That in my experience is the key. TRUST that God wants to give more than we want to receive.

Such a shame he was unable to think outside from the box and let God be God

 

[Diddi]

Instead of your stories, why not tackle my arguments and pin them to the ground? Am I in the wrong forum? Does anyone have the slightest idea of what I’m talking about? One guy gives me anecdotes, the other says beliefs based on empirical testing are dogmas and thus rewriting the dictionary (Like saying “Dogs are cats. You said woof but it’s really meow: you lose”), another says… ok everybody else is doing the anecdote thing too. As if every other religion didn’t have anecdotes.

-Sigh!-

We are both begging the question so I can’t pin you down and you can’t pin me down. There is NO empirical answer to questions about the supernatural because the supernatural by definition is outside of nature and not subject to empirical proof. Have fun trying, but I have to go now. Gave finals today and must finish grading them. I won’t be posting again on this forum for at least a few days. Bye everybody. Have fun arguing. Too bad. This is such a fun thread.

In Christ,

Diddi

 

[Sixtus]

Diddi said:

There is NO empirical answer to questions about the supernatural because the supernatural by definition is outside of nature and not subject to empirical proof.

I whole-heartedly agree.

There are clearly forces at work in the realm of the supernatural that are beyond our comprehension. Will not and SHOULD NOT submit to human will and testing. It is written: ‘you shall not put the Lord your God to the test’!

It is infinitely humble but it will not submit to being humliated by humanity. Instead of trying to test it, we would do far better to just stand in awe of it and meditate on its unfathomableness and mystery. Not very scientific but very realistic and logical

 

[LilyM]

That is the point, experience shows that “Ask and thou shalt receive” is not true.

… that is not bound by its promises. If the entity is free to fulfil it’s word or not, it is dishonest. But if by definition the entity is good, then, it is neither good or it just isn’t there.

Ask and thou shalt receive indeed - and in spades - but not always precisely what you asked for at the time you ask for it. Since we often ask for inappropriate or even harmful things at the worst possible time. Instead, you receive what you need at the time you need it. What’s good for you at the time it’s good for you to have it.

If a child asks for a machine gun the parent isn’t going to give him or her one just to show that they can! Or if they ask for a bicycle for their birthday when the parent is saving up for an even better one for them for Christmas.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

That is the point, experience shows that “Ask and thou shalt receive” is not true.

In light of this statement, my own previous post may not have been helpful. In Mathew, Jesus tells us “Don’t make long prayers full of words like the pagans do and expect God to listen, for God already knows your needs…” This was what I mentioned before, but apparently it comes into conflict with “Ask and thou shalt recieve” – the statement repeatedly brought up by LogosSokratikos.

So, since I myself am a bit puzzled, could someone provide an answer to what I think is LogosSokratikos’s question (and the conflict of statements above).

 

[tdgesq]

Who established freethought dogmas? How is it that testing reality and subjecting beliefs to the test putting them in danger of refutation, is dogma? Where is it written, where was it decided what I “must” believe? Where is the freethought catechism?

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be comprised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

This is just hilarious. Beliefs “should” be formed on the basis of science and logical principles, not on arbitrary authority. Do you really not see the contradiction here? Why “should” they be formed on these bases and - say - not on claimed supernatural revelation? Because you say so dogmatically? Lol! Here’s the definition of dogma for your reference:

n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” Abraham Lincoln.

thefreedictionary.com/dogma

Sure looks like your “freethought” presuppositions qualify in spades. I could go through that wiki article all day long and remain amused.

By the same token, how is Cath dogma established, via observation and testing, or in councils where they pray for guidance instead of verification? How did they test, how did they contrast the assumption of Mary? Why haven’t other Churches adopted it? When Pasteur proposed the germ theory from repeated observation and experimentation, others tested it too, and discarded rival hypotheses, however dear to them.

Do you really want these answered, or are they just rhetorical questions? Here are some for you. How are the laws of logic that you hold so dear justified or self-justifying? Why do you insist that they obtain universally, and if they don’t, why are using them? What is your solution for the problem of induction? If you don’t have one, what good is the scientific method that you worship? How have you established the reliability of the senses? See. I can ask a long list of questions too. I think what we’re going to find out is that you are beholden to a number of dogmas.

Other churches don’t “buy” Cath dogma innovations because there is no intesubjective testing and confirming. How does sitting and pondering dressed in red at Vatican or at Trent and “vote” for the structure of the hereafter, to empirical research that wins agreements by virtue of tangible proof?

If there is empirical testing, that isn’t dogma. Dogma is when you are told to believe something not intended to be discarded by empirical research.

This is just bunk. Everything you believe and how you operate everyday in the world is not dependent upon empirical testing and research. I can demonstrate this easily, and you know it. So how abouts we stop pretending that everything you believe has been subject to empirical research. In fact, whether it’s empiricism as an epistemology or the scientific method - guess what - you can’t justify either through empirical testing. So your own holy grail of knowledge doesn’t justify itself. That’s because you hold it on faith. It’s one of your dogmas that you expect all of the rest of us to accept blindly just like you do.

 

[tdgesq]

That is the point, experience shows that “Ask and thou shalt receive” is not true.

Yeah, well, we are not biblical literalists you see. We’re Catholics. Maybe this works well with biblical fundamentalists, but it won’t with us:

2 You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

James 4, New American Standard.

One reason prayer might not always be efficacious.

11 The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12 Sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, “Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 13 Leaving them, He again embarked and went away to the other side.

Mark 8, New American Standard.

Another reason why prayer may not be efficacious, especially in this case where the researchers are clearly seeking a sign.

… that is not bound by its promises. If the entity is free to fulfil it’s word or not, it is dishonest. But if by definition the entity is good, then, it is neither good or it just isn’t there.

God has made no promise that he will fulfill every petition that is cast his way. Not only have you shown that you do not understand our dogmas, but that you don’t even understand your own.

 

[Exalt]

Ask and thou shalt receive indeed - and in spades - but not always precisely what you asked for at the time you ask for it. Since we often ask for inappropriate or even harmful things at the worst possible time. Instead, you receive what you need at the time you need it. What’s good for you at the time it’s good for you to have it.

If a child asks for a machine gun the parent isn’t going to give him or her one just to show that they can! Or if they ask for a bicycle for their birthday when the parent is saving up for an even better one for them for Christmas.

What about prayers for clearly good things? (i.e., God stopping the holocaust)

 

[LilyM]

What about prayers for clearly good things? (i.e., God stopping the holocaust)

Clearly good? In eternal terms? In God’s terms?

Good for the souls of those who suffered and died or those who lost loved ones? Who gained so much spiritual merit by offering up their sufferings, and even their lives, as did St Maximilian Kolbe and St Edith Stein? They both died in the camps (Kolbe even offered his own life to save another man’s, since he was a father of several children and Kolbe a celibate priest.)

Good in terms of being the making of those strong strong people who survived? People like my wonderful grandparents? Good in terms of what those survivors did in building the nation of Israel, and indeed in migrating to America, Australia and other places and building up those countries? Good in terms of the lessons the whole world has learned from it?

You’re thinking in human terms, and selfish human terms at that, not God’s. As much tragedy as came out of the holocaust, so did a heck of a lot of good of various kinds.

 

[Exalt]

Basically, the response to my original post has been one of the following answers:

1. 
   *]God has answered a prayer of mine. Or, God has answered someone else’s prayer. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2257687&postcount=42)
   *]You can’t apply empiricism or scientific research to the ineffable mysteries of God. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2254129&postcount=6)
   *]You shouldn’t ask God for things in prayer. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2254660&postcount=12)
   *]God answers prayers. You’re just too hard-hearted to see it, or what you asked for isn’t worthy enough. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2255078&postcount=22)
   But none of these answers are adequate:
   
   1. 
      *]God hasn’t answered thousands of very needy prayers. Why does God pick some prayers to answer, while other people’s prayers go neglected?
      
      Perhaps you’re thinking to yourself – “Well, God answers prayers with ‘No’ sometimes. We should just be patient and trust in God.” But this is not an acceptable answer. It merely says “Hey, I don’t really know why God answers ‘no’ to some very needy people and not to others, but I’m not going to worry about it and trust in God anyway.”
      
      Furthermore, this plays right in to the “God-Can’t-Lose” illusion that I was talking about in the original post. If God’s three responses to a prayer is “yes” “no” and “wait” God can’t lose. But neither can my Stone Idol, TV, skateboard, or pet cat.
      
      Why don’t you ask my Stone Idol to answer a prayer? I can assure you that he will. It may not be the answer you want to hear, but he will answer it – with a “yes” “no” or “wait.” Go ahead, ask for anything.
      
      Let’s say you have a child who is going through a complicated and life-threatening surgery. I tell you to pray to my stone idol. Let’s say your child lives. I would say “see! The Stone Idol answered your prayer.” Let’s say your child dies. I would say “Well, the Stone Idol answers prayers with ‘No’ sometimes. We should just be patient and trust in the Stone Idol.”
      
      No matter what you pray for, I will always have an explanation for the Stone Idol. But you would never bow down and worship the Stone Idol. Why? Because you know he didn’t do anything.
      
      God is exactly the same way. God can’t lose either. No matter what I or anyone else prays for, you will always have an explanation.
      *]Requesting God’s help is very a tangible thing. “God, please allow my children and I to eat tonight.” Either you will have food on the table or you won’t. “God, please allow my dad to live through his heart operation” Either your dad will live or he won’t. Help is solid and tangible and measurable.
      
      Christianity says that God cares for you and desires to help you. In the scientific study that I cited in my original post, the people being prayed for were heart patients. They were genuinely in need of help. Some were specifically prayed for. Others weren’t. Those who were specifically prayed for actually did *worse *than those who were not specifically prayed for.
      
      The result is quantifiable. People lived or died. Regardless of what you want to say about God’s ineffable mysteries, the results of prayer are measurable – because you’re asking for something very tangible.
      
      The fact is, there is no difference between those who are prayed for and those who are not prayed for. Prayer makes no difference at all – not even a psychological difference (as I said before, those who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse). If there is any difference whatsoever, it is not able to be verified by evidence. However, there *should *be evidence – because what these people prayed for is tangible.
      *]Christianity says that God helps people – and that Christians ought to ask for that help. “Give us this day our daily bread” sound familiar?

 

[Exalt]

1. 
   *](Above)
   *](Above)
   *](Above)
   *]“If only you could see what the Stone Idol has done for you. If only you believed in the stone idol you would be able to see the Stone Idol.”
   
   What do Christians mean when they say things like that? Well, let’s start with the obvious. What do they mean when they say you can “see” God? They *don’t *mean literally seeing Jesus and talking to him, or anything like that. They mean they can “hear” his voice in a non-literal sense – not in actual words, really, but a soft emotion – a movement of the soul. They can “feel” his presence – perhaps, as in some of my more spiritual friends, in Christian music. Perhaps in mass or in adoration.
   
   But, in every single person I’ve talked to, “seeing God” is nothing more than that.
   
   They hear his voice because they *want *to hear his voice. They feel emotion when they pray, and they attribute it to God’s presence. It’s nothing more than that, 99.9% of the time.
   
   Someone talked about C.S. Lewis and how he said that for some people, it doesn’t matter how much evidence God throws, they will keep saying that God doesn’t exist. First of all, that just might be true for some people (though I highly doubt it). But second of all, I’m willing to be convinced. If God wants to communicate with me in a direct way – something that can’t reasonably be attributed to emotion – I am more than willing to listen.

 

[LilyM]

Basically, the response to my original post has been one of the following answers:

1. 
   *]God has answered a prayer of mine. Or, God has answered someone else’s prayer. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2257687&postcount=42)
   *]You can’t apply empiricism or scientific research to the ineffable mysteries of God. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2254129&postcount=6)
   *]You shouldn’t ask God for things in prayer. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2254660&postcount=12)
   *]God answers prayers. You’re just too hard-hearted to see it, or what you asked for isn’t worthy enough. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2255078&postcount=22)
   But none of these answers are adequate:
   
   1. 
      *]God hasn’t answered thousands of very needy prayers. Why does God pick some prayers to answer, while other people’s prayers go neglected?
      
      Perhaps you’re thinking to yourself – “Well, God answers prayers with ‘No’ sometimes. We should just be patient and trust in God.” But this is not an acceptable answer. It merely says “Hey, I don’t really know why God answers ‘no’ to some very needy people and not to others, but I’m not going to worry about it and trust in God anyway.”
      
      Furthermore, this plays right in to the “God-Can’t-Lose” illusion that I was talking about in the original post. If God’s three responses to a prayer is “yes” “no” and “wait” God can’t lose. But neither can my Stone Idol, TV, skateboard, or pet cat.
      
      Why don’t you ask my Stone Idol to answer a prayer? I can assure you that he will. It may not be the answer you want to hear, but he will answer it – with a “yes” “no” or “wait.” Go ahead, ask for anything.
      
      Let’s say you have a child who is going through a complicated and life-threatening surgery. I tell you to pray to my stone idol. Let’s say your child lives. I would say “see! The Stone Idol answered your prayer.” Let’s say your child dies. I would say “Well, the Stone Idol answers prayers with ‘No’ sometimes. We should just be patient and trust in the Stone Idol.”
      
      No matter what you pray for, I will always have an explanation for the Stone Idol. But you would never bow down and worship the Stone Idol. Why? Because you know he didn’t do anything.
      
      God is exactly the same way. God can’t lose either. No matter what I or anyone else prays for, you will always have an explanation.
      *]Requesting God’s help is very a tangible thing. “God, please allow my children and I to eat tonight.” Either you will have food on the table or you won’t. “God, please allow my dad to live through his heart operation” Either your dad will live or he won’t. Help is solid and tangible and measurable.
      
      Christianity says that God cares for you and desires to help you. In the scientific study that I cited in my original post, the people being prayed for were heart patients. They were genuinely in need of help. Some were specifically prayed for. Others weren’t. Those who were specifically prayed for actually did *worse *than those who were not specifically prayed for.
      
      The result is quantifiable. People lived or died. Regardless of what you want to say about God’s ineffable mysteries, the results of prayer are measurable – because you’re asking for something very tangible.
      
      The fact is, there is no difference between those who are prayed for and those who are not prayed for. Prayer makes no difference at all – not even a psychological difference (as I said before, those who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse). If there is any difference whatsoever, it is not able to be verified by evidence. However, there *should *be evidence – because what these people prayed for is tangible.
      *]Christianity says that God helps people – and that Christians ought to ask for that help. “Give us this day our daily bread” sound familiar?

1. 1. 
      And if you ask me for a favour, I too can only answer in one of three ways - ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘not now’. Does that mean I don’t exist? That I don’t desire to help people? Or that I don’t want to be asked for help? None of those.