What is a good theological critique of "coincidences"? How do you know that answered prayers aren't merely a coincidence?

[Tsuwano]

In that case all the attributes ascribed to God must be declared null and void and meaningless. There is no more “God exists”, or “God is love”, no more of the “omnimax attributes”. If human language cannot describe God, then so be it. But in that case you must impose silence about the whole subject. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. That only happens in some fairy-tales, not in real life.

Human language and culture, including religion, can describe God to a point, but never exhaustively. The faithful person is always conscious that his or her description of God is incomplete. Furthermore, you dismiss the Christian interpretation of God when you insist that “all attributes ascribed to God must be declared null and void and meaningless.” This would be true if God himself did not enter into human time and history. Christians believe that God was incarnated in the human person of Jesus. He did enter into human history and time and experience. Christians believe it is the person of Jesus who connects us to God because God has made himself present among us. God has communicated with us and described himself in ways and means that we can understand. Thus the Christian can say with confidence that “God is love” not merely because this is our experience of God, but because God grants us the grace to know this about him. Of course, we are speaking in theological terms, which do not possess the certainty of scientific experimentation. We cannot limit God except in the ways God allows himself to be limited. If you claim that this is not scientific knowledge and cannot be known beyond doubt, I agree. Nevertheless, it is a kind of knowledge born of faith and faith is not uncomfortable with doubt. Indeed, not being able to explain God fully is the seed from which faith developes. I suppose some might call this ignorance or superstition, but I can live with that. My own personal experience compels me to assert my faith whether anyone else acknowledges it or not.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Human language and culture, including religion, can describe God to a point, but never exhaustively. The faithful person is always conscious that his or her description of God is incomplete. Furthermore, you dismiss the Christian interpretation of God when you insist that “all attributes ascribed to God must be declared null and void and meaningless.” This would be true if God himself did not enter into human time and history. Christians believe that God was incarnated in the human person of Jesus. He did enter into human history and time and experience. Christians believe it is the person of Jesus who connects us to God because God has made himself present among us. God has communicated with us and described himself in ways and means that we can understand. Thus the Christian can say with confidence that “God is love” not merely because this is our experience of God, but because God grants us the grace to know this about him. Of course, we are speaking in theological terms, which do not possess the certainty of scientific experimentation. We cannot limit God except in the ways God allows himself to be limited. If you claim that this is not scientific knowledge and cannot be known beyond doubt, I agree. Nevertheless, it is a kind of knowledge born of faith and faith is not uncomfortable with doubt. Indeed, not being able to explain God fully is the seed from which faith developes. I suppose some might call this ignorance or superstition, but I can live with that. My own personal experience compels me to assert my faith whether anyone else acknowledges it or not.

Good response . I hope everything is okay where you are at in Japan?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[Tsuwano]

Good response . I hope everything is okay where you are at in Japan?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

Yes, here in Nagoya we are fine. We certainly felt the quake, even this far from the epicenter, and knew it was a bad one somewhere because it lasted so long. It was registered as a 4 here. I hope others, whether they believe in prayer or not, will think of those who are suffering and have lost loved ones. Thank you for your concern.

 

[Luke_K]

But the fact of the matter is that none of the above is ever going to happen because prayer doesn’t work. If you could consistently demonstrate its efficacy to statistically significant degrees, someone would have done it already, and it would have been front-page news pretty much everywhere because it would rock the very foundations of human knowledge.

The fact of the matter is that prayer and its “results” are completely unmeasurable and completely indistinguishable from coincidence.

Tsuwano:

You could do all this, but then this assumes that the purpose of prayer is to bend God toward the will of the petitioner. Only someone who does not pray very often would assume that this is the only, or even primary, purpose of prayer. It is not. The purpose of prayer is to bend the petitioner toward the will of God. This turning toward God cannot be measured using statistics, I’m afraid, but can only be known by the person who is praying, and then only over a period of time, sometimes a lifetime. Prayer is not concerned with coincidence because the faithful Christian believes that God’s will is made manifest in history through human experience. A particular incident may not be indicative of God’s will, but history, in the long run, is.

Excellent reply, Tsuwano. I am reminded of Jesus’ prayer before undergoing his passion: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, yet not as I will, but as you will.”

AntiTheist, your proposed experiment treats God as if he were a vending machine who responds to prayers insofar as the pray-er (name removed by moderator)uts the correct code and money. God is not a phenomenon of nature that can be tested and analyzed statistically. He is a person. I know that it doesn’t jive with your philosophy to believe in anything that isn’t in principle empirically testable, but on the day that you accept God for who he is instead of what you want him to be, you will understand why Christians believe.

That said, I recognize that many people take a very selective approach to responses to their prayers. They tend to ignore the prayers that are not answered the way they wanted, and view the opposite to be proof that God does answer prayers. But that to me is just a sign of their immature attitude towards prayer- the mature attitude being the one described by Tsuwano.

 

[Spock]

Here’s how I see it:

We pray. God knows we will pray. God knows how and if he will respond to the prayer. He knew from the start and never changed his mind. No contradiction or doublethink here. Or am I missing something?

Yes, you miss the futility of the intercessory prayer. God’s part, as you described is fine. It is the human behavior, which is nonsensical. That is the contradiction and doublethink I alluded to.

You know that God will do whatever he will do, whether you pray for it or not. You also know that God will not do whatever he does not want to do, whether you pray for it or not. So why waste your time on supplicative prayers, when you can spend your time on meditative prayers?

 

[Spock]

Human language and culture, including religion, can describe God to a point, but never exhaustively. The faithful person is always conscious that his or her description of God is incomplete. Furthermore, you dismiss the Christian interpretation of God when you insist that “all attributes ascribed to God must be declared null and void and meaningless.”

It was stated in a scpecific context, when the poster originally stated that human language cannot describe God at all. Later he amended his stance.

This would be true if God himself did not enter into human time and history. Christians believe that God was incarnated in the human person of Jesus. He did enter into human history and time and experience. Christians believe it is the person of Jesus who connects us to God because God has made himself present among us. God has communicated with us and described himself in ways and means that we can understand.

This all would be nice and dandy if it were not just an acient legend.

Thus the Christian can say with confidence that “God is love” not merely because this is our experience of God, but because God grants us the grace to know this about him.

From where I stand the picture is different. There is absolutely no sign that God “loves” us. We do not “experience” God in any manner. The current, horrible events in Japan are the reality. God did not warn anyone about the impending disaster, God did not prevent the tsunami from doing its destruction. If that is the sign of “love”, who needs “hate”?

Of course, we are speaking in theological terms, which do not possess the certainty of scientific experimentation. We cannot limit God except in the ways God allows himself to be limited. If you claim that this is not scientific knowledge and cannot be known beyond doubt, I agree.

I don’t ask for evidence “beyond doubt”. I would be interested to see evidence about as small as a mustard seed - if it were clear-cut and not an obvious coincidence.

Nevertheless, it is a kind of knowledge born of faith and faith is not uncomfortable with doubt. Indeed, not being able to explain God fully is the seed from which faith developes. I suppose some might call this ignorance or superstition, but I can live with that. My own personal experience compels me to assert my faith whether anyone else acknowledges it or not.

I am happy for you. When I was a believer, I was satisfied with faith. Not any more.

 

[Pieman333272]

Yes, you miss the futility of the intercessory prayer. God’s part, as you described is fine. It is the human behavior, which is nonsensical. That is the contradiction and doublethink I alluded to.

You know that God will do whatever he will do, whether you pray for it or not. You also know that God will not do whatever he does not want to do, whether you pray for it or not. So why waste your time on supplicative prayers, when you can spend your time on meditative prayers?

Because God will only answer them if we pray. I mean, God knows how he will react to the prayer, and knows we will pray. If we don’t pray, he won’t react.

 

[Spock]

Because God will only answer them if we pray. I mean, God knows how he will react to the prayer, and knows we will pray. If we don’t pray, he won’t react.

He may not “react”, but he will “act” no matter if you pray or not. By the way, it would be interesting to see an actual “answer” and a “reaction” from God.

Let’s see: you gather all your fellow Christians, and organize a huge prayer event. Of course you should pray for anything that is worthy in God’s eyes. For example you could pray that all the ones who need God’s special grace to accept him would be granted this special grace. It would be a win-win situation. God would gain all these new worshippers, the so-far-atheists or worshippers-of-some-false-gods would convert to Catholicism, and you, the ones who prayed would chalk up a huge success in your heavenly balance-book.

If God answers in a loud, clear voice, and grants that special grace, all is well. If not, you could see that God does not care, and draw your own conclusions. Of course when (and not IF) second scenario unfolds, you can always convince yourself that God cannot be “tested”, and keep your faith.

In a sense I envy you. If something unfolds which you take a new “evidence” for your faith, you happily embrace the new “evidence”. If the evidence does not support your faith, you are satisfied that God’s ways are mysterious and besides, God cannot be tested. It must be nice when both sides of your bread is buttered.

They say that God is immutable,
and their reasoning is truly irrefutable.
When He acts as He should,
They say He is good,
When He does not, His ways are inscrutable.

 

[Pieman333272]

He may not “react”, but he will “act” no matter if you pray or not. By the way, it would be interesting to see an actual “answer” and a “reaction” from God.

Let’s see: you gather all your fellow Christians, and organize a huge prayer event. Of course you should pray for anything that is worthy in God’s eyes. For example you could pray that all the ones who need God’s special grace to accept him would be granted this special grace. It would be a win-win situation. God would gain all these new worshippers, the so-far-atheists or worshippers-of-some-false-gods would convert to Catholicism, and you, the ones who prayed would chalk up a huge success in your heavenly balance-book.

If God answers in a loud, clear voice, and grants that special grace, all is well. If not, you could see that God does not care, and draw your own conclusions. Of course when (and not IF) second scenario unfolds, you can always convince yourself that God cannot be “tested”, and keep your faith.

In a sense I envy you. If something unfolds which you take a new “evidence” for your faith, you happily embrace the new “evidence”. If the evidence does not support your faith, you are satisfied that God’s ways are mysterious and besides, God cannot be tested. It must be nice when both sides of your bread is buttered.

They say that God is immutable,
and their reasoning is truly irrefutable.
When He acts as He should,
They say He is good,
When He does not, His ways are inscrutable.

Please don’t shift the topic. The debate at hand is about whether or not immutability disables God’s ability to answer prayer. I argued it doesn’t, you countered that means there is no point in praying because God will act accordingly anyway. I replied that that is not the case, because God will only intervene if he is prayed to in the given scenario.

You then go on to criticize Christians for copping out when prayer doesn’t work. That may be the case but that isn’t what the debate is about.

 

[seagal]

This all would be nice and dandy if it were not just an acient legend.

If you’re asking us to justify our beliefs then you have to allow us to explain the source of those beliefs. You don’t have to believe it.

 

[Spock]

Please don’t shift the topic. The debate at hand is about whether or not immutability disables God’s ability to answer prayer. I argued it doesn’t, you countered that means there is no point in praying because God will act accordingly anyway.

According to what???

I replied that that is not the case, because God will only intervene if he is prayed to in the given scenario.

How do you know that? If God would only act, if prayed to, then your prayer would influence God’s behavior, which is contradicted by immutability. Can’t have it both ways.

 

[Pieman333272]

According to what???

According to whether or not we pray.

How do you know that? If God would only act, if prayed to, then your prayer would influence God’s behavior, which is contradicted by immutability. Can’t have it both ways.

It would influence his actions but not his will. Immutability means no **internal **change (for God).

 

[Spock]

According to whether or not we pray.

It would influence his actions but not his will. Immutability means no **internal **change (for God).

Another attribute of God is “simplicity”. God has no parts, has no separate “will” and separate “actions”. It is all one “piece”. And immutability, which is also the result of “timeless” existence, renders God immovable, immutable and incapable of “action” - action as we understand this word. No matter how you twist it, you run into a contradiction.

 

[Pieman333272]

Another attribute of God is “simplicity”. God has no parts, has no separate “will” and separate “actions”. It is all one “piece”. And immutability, which is also the result of “timeless” existence, renders God immovable, immutable and incapable of “action” - action as we understand this word. No matter how you twist it, you run into a contradiction.

God can move, because it’s not an internal change (he has no body heat, or anything else that would change if you or I moved). Same with quite a few other verbs.

 

[Tsuwano]

It was stated in a scpecific context, when the poster originally stated that human language cannot describe God at all. Later he amended his stance.

This all would be nice and dandy if it were not just an acient legend.

From where I stand the picture is different. There is absolutely no sign that God “loves” us. We do not “experience” God in any manner. The current, horrible events in Japan are the reality. God did not warn anyone about the impending disaster, God did not prevent the tsunami from doing its destruction. If that is the sign of “love”, who needs “hate”?

I don’t ask for evidence “beyond doubt”. I would be interested to see evidence about as small as a mustard seed - if it were clear-cut and not an obvious coincidence.

I am happy for you. When I was a believer, I was satisfied with faith. Not any more.

I’m not quite sure how to respond to your post except to say that I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m merely saying that from a Christian point of view God has always communicated with humanity and that this communication is most clearly seen in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. This point of view provides meaning for Christians and leads us to believe that God does indeed love us. If you choose to believe that Jesus and the faith that underlies the Christian view is “just an ancient legend” that is your perogative. It doesn’t, however, mean your view is correct. Believe as you will, or don’t. It is also not my purpose in my posts to convince you that there are signs that God loves us. If you truly believe that there are no signs in the world of God’s love, so be it. We believe that God’s love falls on the just and the unjust alike, those who believe and those who do not. I suppose evidence of God’s love is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen evidence of God’s love all around me, but I doubt you would accept that evidence as real. I wish I could say that I was happy for you, but truly, I am always saddened by disbelief. I do not wish you ill, mind you, only that you find satisfaction in life. I truly wish faith could satisfy you, as it satisfies so many others, but somehow I also think that disbelief will leave you dissatisfied as well. Anyway, that is the road you are traveling. For my part, I have chosen a different path.

 

[Spock]

I’m not quite sure how to respond to your post except to say that I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I’m merely saying that from a Christian point of view God has always communicated with humanity and that this communication is most clearly seen in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. This point of view provides meaning for Christians and leads us to believe that God does indeed love us. If you choose to believe that Jesus and the faith that underlies the Christian view is “just an ancient legend” that is your perogative. It doesn’t, however, mean your view is correct. Believe as you will, or don’t. It is also not my purpose in my posts to convince you that there are signs that God loves us. If you truly believe that there are no signs in the world of God’s love, so be it. We believe that God’s love falls on the just and the unjust alike, those who believe and those who do not. I suppose evidence of God’s love is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen evidence of God’s love all around me, but I doubt you would accept that evidence as real. I wish I could say that I was happy for you, but truly, I am always saddened by disbelief. I do not wish you ill, mind you, only that you find satisfaction in life. I truly wish faith could satisfy you, as it satisfies so many others, but somehow I also think that disbelief will leave you dissatisfied as well. Anyway, that is the road you are traveling. For my part, I have chosen a different path.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Just one remark to the sentence I highlighted above. An “evidence” which is true in the eyes of the beholder is simply not evidence. It is a subjective assessment.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello AntiTheist;

Now imagine if this experiment were repeated again and again, with different members of different religions saying the prayers, and you could demonstrate that it is only the prayers of Catholics that have this effect.

Why would God have any need to respond to a human experiment?

Take care

Eric

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello Spock;

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Just one remark to the sentence I highlighted above. An “evidence” which is true in the eyes of the beholder is simply not evidence. It is a subjective assessment.

Answered prayers are for the benefit of the person concerned, after prayers have been answered, we are often called to give something in return

I have been a Street Pastor for three years, this involves going out on a Friday night, until 3 am, we come into contact with drugs, aggression, drunks, gangs and rowdy behaviour. We have people praying for us, they pray for the community, the police, our safety, and for good outcomes. I would not have the courage to do this on my own, I just trust that God hears our prayers.

About 2am last Friday we approached a dozen angry drunks fighting, we did manage to bring about a certain amount of calm and peace. I am 61, and my two lady partners are much older, we look for the good in all people.
In times when I should be feeling fear and anxiety, I can only say that I have felt an inner peace that surpasses all my understanding.

Take care

Eric

 

[Spock]

Answered prayers are for the benefit of the person concerned, after prayers have been answered, we are often called to give something in return

I have been a Street Pastor for three years, this involves going out on a Friday night, until 3 am, we come into contact with drugs, aggression, drunks, gangs and rowdy behaviour. We have people praying for us, they pray for the community, the police, our safety, and for good outcomes. I would not have the courage to do this on my own, I just trust that God hears our prayers.

About 2am last Friday we approached a dozen angry drunks fighting, we did manage to bring about a certain amount of calm and peace. I am 61, and my two lady partners are much older, we look for the good in all people.
In times when I should be feeling fear and anxiety, I can only say that I have felt an inner peace that surpasses all my understanding.

It is all very nice, as long as you describe what your experiences were. It shows that you and your partners are very good people. I hope you do not maintain that is evidence or God’s existence, or God’s love, or the efficacy of prayer.

 

[Spock]

Why would God have any need to respond to a human experiment?

To help those who were not given a “special grace”, to help them to open their eyes. Out of concern and love, of course…