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

[JDaniel]

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.

Spock:

No question. But, that should not stop us from praying for those things. There are two places in Scripture that talk of women who went to the magistrate of their towns every day to beg for something. We are told that the magistrates, after a time, gave the women what they wanted. These were intended to be examples of why we should pray. It is my belief that God listens. The closer I am as his friend, the more he listens. I become closer through habit and repetition.

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”.

Where is that supposition supported? If a parent tells a child to pray for snow, in Winter, either the parent is toying with the child, or the family needs the snow for the melt-off of water in the Spring. But, it is not as simple as you describe. Also, why would one not pray for a departed relative? We want our beloved departed to bypass Purgatory. What’s wrong with that?

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…

Yeah: turn it scientific. Do everything possible to draw him out - AT YOUR EXQUISITE BECK AND CALL. Then, if he doesn’t oblige you, on YOUR terms and at YOUR discretion, call him a fake. How sad.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

There are two places in Scripture that talk of women who went to the magistrate of their towns every day to beg for something. We are told that the magistrates, after a time, gave the women what they wanted. These were intended to be examples of why we should pray. It is my belief that God listens. The closer I am as his friend, the more he listens. I become closer through habit and repetition.

You cannot have it both ways. Either God is immutable, and then the constant “nagging” makes no sense, or God can be influenced by repetitive prayers. But you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Where is that supposition supported? If a parent tells a child to pray for snow, in Winter, either the parent is toying with the child, or the family needs the snow for the melt-off of water in the Spring.

I don’t think it was “toying”. It was used as a positive reinforcement: “you pray for snow, and voila! God delivers”. And if God does not deliver, then they say: “you were not good enough”.

Also, why would one not pray for a departed relative? We want our beloved departed to bypass Purgatory. What’s wrong with that?

Nothing “wrong” with it. If God is immutable, then it is just a little waste of time.

Yeah: turn it scientific. Do everything possible to draw him out - AT YOUR EXQUISITE BECK AND CALL. Then, if he doesn’t oblige you, on YOUR terms and at YOUR discretion, call him a fake. How sad.

Why is it sad? It is logical. I don’t suggest that the prayer should be for some selfish goal, or some frivolous mockery. I suggest that the prayer would be for something that you (believers) “know” is in accordance with God’s will, and still it is something testable and verifiable. Praying to shorten the stay in purgatory is nice, but it cannot be verified.

Praying to send grace to the atheists, so they could see the “light” (so to speak) is not frivolous, and it could be tested. And no matter how many believers would get together and not matter how many times they would “nag” God about it, God will not do it. I would be willing to put money where my mouth is. Would you? Of course not.

And you probably have your “defense” ready: “God cannot be tested”. My question is: “why not”? Because all the proper tests would substantiate that God either does exist or God does nor care. And these results are unacceptable for the believers. Hence: “God cannot be tested”. You know what? That is what is very sad. The self-imposed blindness of faith.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Spock:

The rest of us are good with the preponderance of evidence we have.

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

So? On that, throw out the seventy-three books, the hundreds and hundreds of authors, the thirty-five hundred years it took to directly unfold, and some of the most intelligent profits and commentators to have graced this planet? Simply because it didn’t happen in YOUR time frame? And, YOU WANT IT NOW?

I would respectfully request that he not do that. I have Faith AND Belief, neither of which did I have for a period of time. But, I have it now. I ask nothing more from him than to forgive them for they know not what they do.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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:

No doubt. But, it can be simply sequential. “Time” is not an infallible requirement. There is no contradiction. Push a ball down the sidewalk. Simultaneity does not REQUIRE “time.”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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…

Spock:

No. All that exists was created by God where there was nothing. There was no material and no form from which to cause the universe. (This has been reiterated so many times herein that it makes me nearly: ) There was God (a spiritual being) and there was purpose (His purpose). And all was begun instantaneously. You will never understand that until you come to grips with the exigency that an Eternal Now is not anything like our instantaneous now.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

AT:

I wish certain people would stop making this mistake: “. . . 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

And, your proof beyond a reasonable doubt is?

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 outside of your mind.

And, your proof beyond a reasonable doubt is? Oh, BTW, ad infinitum.

God bless,
jd

 

[AntiTheist]

And, your proof beyond a reasonable doubt is?

I don’t need “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” to reject a claim that has no evidence going for it.

If you make a claim about the positive existence of an external entity that is causing you to have subjective experiences, citing the subjective experiences is not sufficient to demonstrate that the entity exists – in exactly the same way that a Hindu mystic’s experience of “talking to Shiva” doesn’t demonstrate that there’s a Shiva.

If there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a positive claim about an external entity, I am perfectly justified to discount the claim. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” simply doesn’t enter into the picture, and it’s a mistake to think that it does.

 

[JDaniel]

You cannot have it both ways. Either God is immutable, and then the constant “nagging” makes no sense, or God can be influenced by repetitive prayers. But you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Spock:

I wrote a several paragraph reassessment of my earlier position on this very subject, either in here, or on another thread, within the past week or so. Perhaps you missed it. But, therein I spoke of the roll-out of creation, God’s Providence, God’s fore-knowledge, and the Holy Spirit who confers Graces billions of times per minute to those who are worthy. No one can know precisely how He does it, but, being His close Friends, we are given graces to make correct surmises. The Church cannot err on this sort of subject.

I don’t think it was “toying”. It was used as a positive reinforcement: “you pray for snow, and voila! God delivers”. And if God does not deliver, then they say: “you were not good enough”.

I rest my case, your honor.

Nothing “wrong” with it. If God is immutable, then it is just a little waste of time.

No time wasted: we believe that there is nothing more important than the reception of sanctifying grace. Not only will it aid us toward the betterment of our afterlives, but also, it will aid us to do better on all things we do here on earth.

Why is it sad? It is logical. I don’t suggest that the prayer should be for some selfish goal, or some frivolous mockery. I suggest that the prayer would be for something that you (believers) “know” is in accordance with God’s will, and still it is something testable and verifiable. Praying to shorten the stay in purgatory is nice, but it cannot be verified.

Praying to send grace to the atheists, so they could see the “light” (so to speak) is not frivolous, and it could be tested. And no matter how many believers would get together and not matter how many times they would “nag” God about it, God will not do it. I would be willing to put money where my mouth is. Would you? Of course not.

Though I can’t and am not inclined to prove it to anyone’s satisfaction, I was an atheist, and I was prayed for. Until you pointed it out, it never dawned on me that other’s prayers may have been efficacious. Thank you!

And you probably have your “defense” ready: “God cannot be tested”. My question is: “why not”? Because all the proper tests would substantiate that God either does exist or God does nor care. And these results are unacceptable for the believers. Hence: “God cannot be tested”. You know what? That is what is very sad. The self-imposed blindness of faith.

On the contrary: you mis-diagnosed my “defense.” And, you know it is not “sad” for us, don’t you? I touched a nerve, didn’t I? Sorry about that.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

The rest of us are good with the preponderance of evidence we have.

I know. The problem is what do we call “evidence”. If the evidence would be objective, if it could be verified, then it would really be evidence. Otherwise it is again a subjective assessment.

So? On that, throw out the seventy-three books, the hundreds and hundreds of authors, the thirty-five hundred years it took to directly unfold, and some of the most intelligent profits and commentators to have graced this planet? Simply because it didn’t happen in YOUR time frame? And, YOU WANT IT NOW?

What is your problem with it? We are not talking about some esoteric stuff that only happened 2000+ years ago. We are talking about reality, HERE and NOW. God is supposed to exist, supposed to be active everywhere and everywhen. Look at the dogma #69: “God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)” Why do you consider it unreasonable to demand evidence (real evidence!) for such a claim?

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t need “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” to reject a claim that has no evidence going for it.

AT:

Not so: I have the witness of thousands and thousands of people, over the course of civilization up until about the seventeenth century, when Positivism was instantiated.

If you make a claim about the positive existence of an external entity that is causing you to have subjective experiences, citing the subjective experiences is not sufficient to demonstrate that the entity exists – in exactly the same way that a Hindu mystic’s experience of “talking to Shiva” doesn’t demonstrate that there’s a Shiva.

I can make that positive claim a million times a day and it matters not a single jot that you believe it.

If there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a positive claim about an external entity, I am perfectly justified to discount the claim. “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” simply doesn’t enter into the picture, and it’s a mistake to think that it does.

We have thousands of years of human history, thousands of witnesses, oral tradition, written tradition and edited tradition. What have you got?

As I once said, the atheist position is: I can’t possibly know therefore you can’t possibly know. That is a projection: a projection with far less basis than the traditions of Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Incredibly far less!

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

I wrote a several paragraph reassessment of my earlier position on this very subject, either in here, or on another thread, within the past week or so. Perhaps you missed it. But, therein I spoke of the roll-out of creation, God’s Providence, God’s fore-knowledge, and the Holy Spirit who confers Graces billions of times per minute to those who are worthy. No one can know precisely how He does it, but, being His close Friends, we are given graces to make correct surmises. The Church cannot err on this sort of subject.

Awesome. But what does it have to do with the “nagging”? And, btw, the church can err in everything.

No time wasted: we believe that there is nothing more important than the reception of sanctifying grace. Not only will it aid us toward the betterment of our afterlives, but also, it will aid us to do better on all things we do here on earth.

Meditative prayer would do the same trick. There is no need to ask for something.

Though I can’t and am not inclined to prove it to anyone’s satisfaction, I was an atheist, and I was prayed for. Until you pointed it out, it never dawned on me that other’s prayers may have been efficacious. Thank you!

May have been - again? I was told by many posters that they also pray for me. I find it nice and touching, but without any effect whatsoever. Let’s not play hide and seek here. To say that “maybe” in one or two cases God has fulfilled a prayer simply does not cut it. How do you differentiate from coincidence?

On the contrary: you mis-diagnosed my “defense.” And, you know it is not “sad” for us, don’t you? I touched a nerve, didn’t I? Sorry about that.

No, my friend. No “nerve” touched. But if I was mistaken, correct me and answer this question: “why do believers state that God cannot (and should not) be tested?”. Why is it problematic to create a test for God? My answer is: “because the believers ‘secretly’ know but are unwilling to admit it to even themselves that any and all real tests will have a negative outcome”. Obviously you will not admit this even to yourself. So what is your explanation?

 

[JDaniel]

I know. The problem is what do we call “evidence”. If the evidence would be objective, if it could be verified, then it would really be evidence. Otherwise it is again a subjective assessment.

Spock:

It is beyond amazing that the “evidence” MUST be something dissectable; that tens of thousands of witnesses, thousands of years, three Traditions, seventy-three books, forty-three (or more) authors, writing across hundreds of years, is somehow swept away as if it is nothing more than delusions. Amazing . . . and sad.

What is your problem with it? We are not talking about some esoteric stuff that only happened 2000+ years ago. We are talking about reality, HERE and NOW. God is supposed to exist, supposed to be active everywhere and everywhen. Look at the dogma #69: “God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)” Why do you consider it unreasonable to demand evidence (real evidence!) for such a claim?

For those that look, He is. I consider it unreasonable precisely because of the impudence that it takes to confront Him with such a request, as though He MUST jump when we snap our insignificant fingers, especially when He has already spoken and has already been here and has said that He can be known by His creations and if anything more is needed, then there is Faith.

God bless,
jd

 

[AntiTheist]

I have the witness of thousands and thousands of people, over the course of civilization up until about the seventeenth century, when Positivism was instantiated.

So I finish patiently explaining that an inner experience cannot itself be evidence for the cause of that inner experience, and what do you turn around and present as evidence? Accounts of inner experiences.

Bravo. We’re done here.

 

[JDaniel]

Awesome. But what does it have to do with the “nagging”? And, btw, the church can err in everything.

Spock:

No it can’t. (To infinity.) It is an analogy that could be easily understood by the general population. You didn’t need me to answer that did you?

Meditative prayer would do the same trick. There is no need to ask for something.

Except that we were told that if we asked we would receive. (Yep, I can hear your refutation already. The problem is, WE DON’T KNOW. You say it can’t and I say it can. Except that I am going to skip way ahead of you be modifying mine with: ad infinitum!

May have been - again? I was told by many posters that they also pray for me. I find it nice and touching, but without any effect whatsoever. Let’s not play hide and seek here. To say that “maybe” in one or two cases God has fulfilled a prayer simply does not cut it. How do you differentiate from coincidence?

But, Spock, that is YOU relegating it to one or two occurrences. You can’t possibly know that. You are really much more in the dark about that than you think I am about my belief.

No, my friend. No “nerve” touched. But if I was mistaken, correct me and answer this question: “why do believers state that God cannot (and should not) be tested?”

Precisely because God has shown Himself. Now, He wants us to love Him back in as much as possible the same way He loves us.

Why is it problematic to create a test for God?

Do you really not see that as demeaning?

Almost every religion sees that man consists of a body and a soul. What else can a soul, or thetan, or whatever one wants to call it have as its raison d’etre? What else can peer within itself? What else can plumb internal depths that a monkey can’t even glimpse? This is not the result of matter. It is a singular result of a purpose: of a creature that is destined to something more than the worms.

My answer is: “because the believers ‘secretly’ know but are unwilling to admit it to even themselves that any and all real tests will have a negative outcome”. Obviously you will not admit this even to yourself. So what is your explanation?

Well, then that’s YOUR belief. As far as I am concerned, I don’t commiserate over it. Not for a moment - even when talking to you. I know that may be hard for you to entertain, but, I can only ask that you trust me on it. It would be interesting to find out how many more, herein, don’t lose a moment’s sleep over it.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

So I finish patiently explaining that an inner experience cannot itself be evidence for the cause of that inner experience, and what do you turn around and present as evidence? Accounts of inner experiences.

Bravo. We’re done here.

AT:

What! You call the myriad of events re-told to us in the library we call the Bible to be merely “inner experiences”?

God bless,
jd

 

[eternusmatris]

It seems like all the time, things always work out in the end. A million little things suddenly work out perfectly, and I feel like somehow God plays a part in this. Are they coincedences? Perhaps, but I’d prefer to think this is Divine Will.

 

[Spock]

It is beyond amazing that the “evidence” MUST be something dissectable; that tens of thousands of witnesses, thousands of years, three Traditions, seventy-three books, forty-three (or more) authors, writing across hundreds of years, is somehow swept away as if it is nothing more than delusions. Amazing . . . and sad.

Is this a numbers game? One objective physical evidence trumps millions of testimonials and rightfully so. And there is still nothing sad about it.

For those that look, He is.

Nonsense. Unless, of course “look” means something entirely different. I am looking, and finding nothing.

I consider it unreasonable precisely because of the impudence that it takes to confront Him with such a request, as though He MUST jump when we snap our insignificant fingers, especially when He has already spoken and has already been here and has said that He can be known by His creations and if anything more is needed, then there is Faith.

Is it too “difficult” or “inconvenient” for God to manifest himself HERE and NOW? What happened or supposed to have happened is water under the bridge. The believers say that it is important for God to recruit worshippers. That God wishes everyone to be “saved”. Why doesn’t he DO something about it?

 

[JDaniel]

It seems like all the time, things always work out in the end. A million little things suddenly work out perfectly, and I feel like somehow God plays a part in this. Are they coincidences? Perhaps, but I’d prefer to think this is Divine Will.

Welcome to CAF, eternusmatris:

And right you are: what we call ‘coincidences’ Christ calls “Providence.” You have to wonder how so many things come together, when it’s all said and done, almost effortlessly, and without God calling attention to Himself.

There’s one thing an Atheist cannot do for me that I can and will do for him: prayer.

God bless,
jd

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

It seems like all the time, things always work out in the end. A million little things suddenly work out perfectly, and I feel like somehow God plays a part in this. Are they coincedences? Perhaps, but I’d prefer to think this is Divine Will.

Good for you

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[JDaniel]

Is this a numbers game? One objective physical evidence trumps millions of testimonials and rightfully so. And there is still nothing sad about it.

Spock:

The ‘scientistic’ worldview in all of its grandeur.

Nonsense. Unless, of course “look” means something entirely different. I am looking, and finding nothing.

Not yet.

Is it too “difficult” or “inconvenient” for God to manifest himself HERE and NOW? What happened or supposed to have happened is water under the bridge. The believers say that it is important for God to recruit worshippers. That God wishes everyone to be “saved”. Why doesn’t he DO something about it?

He did.

God bless,
jd