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

[JDaniel]

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”?

Spock:

And, if the dead were want to talk to you they might say, “Shut up! We rather like it here!”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Spock:

True, if by ‘action’ you mean turn on a dime. God is an Infinite being, which includes Omniscience and Divine Providence. But, nevertheless, if someone prays to God to let them win the Lottery, they are foolish children.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Pieman:

Well, God does not change in the sense of consisting of parts outside of parts. God wills. And, since His will is Divine (Will), it does not require deliberation. He makes no errors.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Spock:

If we all lived our lives solely on the whim of disbelief in subjective assessment, there would be nothing we could trust. We are mere humans: there is nothing we know infallibly, with the exception of His Holiness, our Pope, on Faith and Morals. Moreover, even he does not achieve that on his sole prowess. He must receive help from the Holy Spirit. So too, if we are given to know God and that he exists, it is not by our pretentious prowess, it is with the assistance of the Holy Spirit as well.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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:

Again, that could be said of everything, to anybody, including to you, regarding your own statement.

God bless,
jd

 

[Tsuwano]

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.

True, which is why I mentioned in my original post to you that when we speak of God our terms and means of explaining ourselves is limited. We must resort to theology, which does not lend itself to scientific explanations. I also mentioned that our knowledge of God is a knowledge of sorts, born of faith and subjective experience. Thus, I agree with you that when we speak of God or attempt to measure the impact that God and those activities or rituals designed to put people in touch with God have on people’s lives, we cannot resort to science as the sole judge of the reality of that experience. Faith is indeed subjective, which doesn’t make it any less real or valid. I suspect that the last part of my previous sentence is where we would most likely disagree.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Hello Spock

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.

If God is incapable of action, how did he create the universe without action?

Seems like a tiny contradiction

Take care

Eric

 

[Spock]

And, if the dead were want to talk to you they might say, “Shut up! We rather like it here!”

“Might” is not an argument.

If you could substantiate that ALL the dead would aloudly proclaim that they prefer to be dead, that it is the best thing that could have happened to them and their families, then and only then you would have an argument. But a “might” just does not cut it. Do you really think that all those who perished really prefer their staus and the way they died? (It is said that drowning or being burned to death is rather unpleasant way to go.)

 

[Spock]

But, nevertheless, if someone prays to God to let them win the Lottery, they are foolish children.

They certainly would be. But to pray for rain in a drought-stricken area is not “that” foolish. Or to pray for world peace, or for eliminating leprosy, or HIV does not sound so foolish. Or to pray that God would open the eyes of all the non-believers, by giving them the necessary “grace”. But maybe all these are “foolish”, don’t know.

There is a trick about supplicative prayers. You are supposed to pray for two types of results. One is that will happen anyhow (for example when children are told to pray for snow in the winter, and when the “miracle” happened, then the parent told the child that prayer “works”. This is something I personally saw happen). Two, where the result cannot be ascertained. Like praying that a deceased relative to go to heaven. Those are the sure “bets”.

It is more risky to pray for something that can be verified, and what is very unlikely to happen. You can, of course, but when the desired result does not materialize, then you must resort to rationalization, like “it was not God’s will”. Of course this rationalization comes easy for believers - which is another thing I am unable to understand…

 

[Spock]

If we all lived our lives solely on the whim of disbelief in subjective assessment, there would be nothing we could trust.

Not true at all. We do not need absolute, 100% type of proof. Not even in court, in a criminal case. Even there it is enough to have “no reasonable doubt”. In civil cases it is enough to have a preponderance of evidence.

Evidence is something that is objective, that can ve verified. Evidence is not a subjective whim. Not even the Catholic Church says that a personal “revelation” should be taken seriously.

 

[Spock]

If God is incapable of action, how did he create the universe without action?

Seems like a tiny contradiction

It is a huge contradiction. There is no action without a “before” and an “after”, in other words, there is no action without time. You should point this out to those apologists who insist on God’s “timeless” realm. Not to me. I already see the contradiction. The apologists do not.

 

[Spock]

True, which is why I mentioned in my original post to you that when we speak of God our terms and means of explaining ourselves is limited. We must resort to theology, which does not lend itself to scientific explanations. I also mentioned that our knowledge of God is a knowledge of sorts, born of faith and subjective experience. Thus, I agree with you that when we speak of God or attempt to measure the impact that God and those activities or rituals designed to put people in touch with God have on people’s lives, we cannot resort to science as the sole judge of the reality of that experience. Faith is indeed subjective, which doesn’t make it any less real or valid. I suspect that the last part of my previous sentence is where we would most likely disagree.

I agree with everything you said, including the last sentence (where we indeed disagree).

 

[ServantJohn]

It is more risky to pray for something that can be verified, and what is very unlikely to happen. You can, of course, but when the desired result does not materialize, then you must resort to rationalization, like “it was not God’s will”. Of course this rationalization comes easy for believers - which is another thing I am unable to understand…

Nowhere in Scripture do I find that Christians are supposed to assume “it was not God’s will”. On the contrary, we can learn from Paul’s example that we should pray until we receive a message from God to the contrary. Paul prayed for the removal of the “thorn” or “sting” of his flesh three times. His thorn was not removed, but the third time God spoke to him saying,“My grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity” (2 Cor. 12:9).

 

[Pieman333272]

It is a huge contradiction. There is no action without a “before” and an “after”, in other words, there is no action without time. You should point this out to those apologists who insist on God’s “timeless” realm. Not to me. I already see the contradiction. The apologists do not.

Or, it is what is known as a “simultaneous causation”, a causation that is not based on time but on the reliance of one on the other - in this case, the Big Bang on God.

 

[Tsuwano]

I agree with everything you said, including the last sentence (where we indeed disagree).

My last sentence was that “Faith is indeed subjective, which doesn’t make it any less real or valid.” I suggested that you would probably disagree with the last part of my sentence and you have affirmed this disagreement. Still, I’m curious. Are there any other areas of subjective experience, such as falling in love or taste or beauty, which you also think are less real and valid because it is subjective? Or do you think falling in love is purely chemical? Is it all merely a matter of science and is this what validates subjective experience?

 

[Spock]

Or, it is what is known as a “simultaneous causation”, a causation that is not based on time but on the reliance of one on the other - in this case, the Big Bang on God.

There is no such thing as “simultaneous” causation. Just look at the dogma #58 (All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.)) which explictly affirms that there was “nothing” and then there was the “creation”, and then there was the world. The contradictoin you mentioned is alive and well…

 

[AntiTheist]

Are there any other areas of subjective experience, such as falling in love or taste or beauty, which you also think are less real and valid because it is subjective? Or do you think falling in love is purely chemical?

I wish people would stop making this mistake. Subjective experiences – such as falling in love, having dreams, or daydreaming that you’re talking to a spirit guide or a god – are just as real as anything else. What atheists are pointing out is that there’s no good reason to think that there is an external supernatural entity responsible for those subjective experiences.

Falling in love is a perfectly real feeling, but that feeling – which is indeed completely natural and arises from brain chemistry – isn’t caused by an external entity that looks like a winged cherub with a bow and arrow.

Similarly, imagining that you’re talking to a spirit guide or a god is perfectly real as well, but it isn’t caused by some actually existing external entity ouside of your mind.

 

[Spock]

My last sentence was that “Faith is indeed subjective, which doesn’t make it any less real or valid.”

Actually, your last sentence was “I suspect that the last part of my previous sentence is where we would most likely disagree”. (This reminds me of the trial scene in Catch 22 - “read back the last sentence”. If you read the book, you will see what I mean, but it is nor really important here.)

I suggested that you would probably disagree with the last part of my sentence and you have affirmed this disagreement. Still, I’m curious. Are there any other areas of subjective experience, such as falling in love or taste or beauty, which you also think are less real and valid because it is subjective?

No, I agree that they are valid even though they are subjective.

Or do you think falling in love is purely chemical? Is it all merely a matter of science and is this what validates subjective experience?

This is also true and does not contradict or invalidate the subjective nature of the experience. The feeling of “being in love” (for example) is bunch of chemicals produced by the brain, and this feeling can be created by exciting the brain’s electro-chemical activities via external means (electrodes and such).

Faith is subjective and valid, just like love is subjective and valid - in the sense that both occur as the activity of the brain. I agree with you on this. However the fact that faith exists (objectively!) does not mean that the object of the faith also exists. The point is here that the feelings inside us will not validate the object of the feeling outside us.

Since the object of the religious faith (God) exists outside us (supposedly!), it is a very reasonable requirement to demand evidence for the existence of this external entity, just like the existence of any objectively existing entities.

 

[JDaniel]

“Might” is not an argument.

If you could substantiate that ALL the dead would aloudly proclaim that they prefer to be dead, that it is the best thing that could have happened to them and their families, then and only then you would have an argument. But a “might” just does not cut it. Do you really think that all those who perished really prefer their staus and the way they died? (It is said that drowning or being burned to death is rather unpleasant way to go.)

Spock:

Well, I nearly drowned twice, in my life, and, as I recall, is was not unpleasant. Scary, for a moment, then blackness. Fortunately, both times I was resuscitated. ( I have since become an excellent swimmer!) Nevertheless, it is our belief that soul is eternal. Therefore, death by any means is the release of souls to the realms that God has provided for them. It is purely your view that ‘death’ is final that causes you to think that way. We are all going to die. We are all going to depart from this fly-speck of an existence. I look forward to death when my time comes.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

“Might” is not an argument.

Spock:

And neither did I use it as an argument.

If you could substantiate that ALL the dead would aloudly proclaim that they prefer to be dead, that it is the best thing that could have happened to them and their families, then and only then you would have an argument. But a “might” just does not cut it. Do you really think that all those who perished really prefer their staus and the way they died? (It is said that drowning or being burned to death is rather unpleasant way to go.)

I do, yes. I don’t care if ALL of them cannot make that proclamation. Everyone has the opportunity to become a friend of God’s. And, even after death, those who were not forthright, will get more chances.

God bless,
jd