Board index ‹ God

[jimwalton]

> Things exist and operate in a certain fashion, this is called reality.
> We use observation, testing and logic do understand what reality is and how it works.
> Based on those criteria, we can make statements about reality.

Just so you know, I agree with these, as you assumed.

> 2. He is outside of reality, so not subject to our tools of observation and testing

This is the first of two with which I disagree. God is not outside of reality, just outside of nature. God exists (your second point #1), and so He is, for the sake of argument, "real," and therefore not outside of reality. He's just not a material being, as time is not material but still exists, as well as memories, etc.

> he can interact with reality and affect it in ways we can’t understand.

I also don't fully endorse this statement. There are some ways God interacts with our natural world that we can't understand, but many of them we can. That's why the Bible was written: to interpret historical events and to show us how God interacts with the natural world and history so that we can understand.

> The problem with the second set is that it tells you nothing about reality and it is impossible to demonstrate.

My contention is that the second set does indeed tell us about reality, possibly more so than history or science does. I would also contend that God is not impossible to demonstrate, it's just that He is not subject to scientific demonstration.

For instance, the Supreme Court is now hearing a case about whether Trump should hand over his financial records. You can't just say to SCOTUS, "Use science to demonstrate whether he should or shouldn't." This stuff is real, and it interacts with reality, but it's not science. That's my problem with your insistence that God be subject to scientific demonstration or He's not real.

[Wicker]

So the first half of your response basically claimed that it is impossible to determine whether or not prayer does anything. And yet, you claim that it does. Basically, you’re just assuming prayer is effective. So, when you pray and something happens, you can claim prayer was the reason. But most of the time when you pray nothing happens, but you discount that. There is absolutely no way, for you to demonstrate to me, or anyone else, that you’re prayer makes anything happen.

> ⁠If God does not exist, my prayer will not be answered.
> ⁠My prayer was not answered.
> ⁠Therefore God does not exist. (Q>P)

This is not what I’m saying. Maybe God exists, but you can’t show he answers prayer. I’m saying there is no demonstrable correlation between prayer and recovery. That study I linked showed that.

[jimwalton]

> So the first half of your response basically claimed that it is impossible to determine whether or not prayer does anything.

No, that's not what I was claiming. Instead, I was claiming that the answers to prayer cannot possibly be subject to a science experiment because (1) you can't control all the variables, (2) you can't control the control group, (3) you can't even define what counts as an answer to prayer and what doesn't, and therefore science is not the right measure to evaluate prayer's effectiveness.

> Basically, you’re just assuming prayer is effective.

No, I've observed that prayer is effective. I go by the evidence, not by assumptions. But the evidence isn't scientific evidence, and can't be, just as the question of whether or not President Trump "abused power" or "obstructed Congress" are not questions of scientific evidence but rather different kinds of arguments. Not every truth is subject to deductive reasoning.

> But most of the time when you pray nothing happens, but you discount that.

I don't discount it at all. It's part of the system God revealed that lots of times when people pray, nothing will happen. There is no expectation of anything different, according to the "rules" of the "system."

> There is absolutely no way, for you to demonstrate to me, or anyone else, that you’re prayer makes anything happen.

Even if I prayed for 10 sick people in sequence, for instance, and all 10 of them got better exactly when I prayed, you still wouldn't believe it because you could possibly concoct a natural explanation for it, but even if you couldn't, you'd never admit that prayer was the cause. You know, I don't know where to go with that except that it's an example of close-mindedness and bias.

[Wicker]

So there’s no way to scientifically or observationally demonstrate the effectiveness of prayers, yet you seem to have determined that they are indeed effective. I’m not understanding how you can determine it, but I can’t. It seems like your just saying, you just know, because you know.

You said, unequivocally, that there is NO way to define what an answer to prayer even looks like, but somehow you know what an answer looks like.

When you pray, how do you determine whether it was God that answered a prayer, or that it was just a natural outcome. I would claim there is absolutely no way for you to demonstrate a difference. You can demonstrate no causation, you can’t even demonstrate a positive correlation, whereas I have shown a NEGATIVE correlation in the study I linked earlier.

You keep telling me prayer is effective and then immediately tell me there is now way to tell if prayer is effective. There’s some huge cognitive dissonance going on.

[jimwalton]

> So there’s no way to scientifically or observationally demonstrate the effectiveness of prayers, yet you seem to have determined that they are indeed effective.

Correct, because it's not science but observation of reality that leads me to the conclusion. Science can only make scientific observations. But since we can't program God (like we can an experiment in the lab), since God is not predictably predictable (like the orbit of the planets), and since God doesn't cater to our whims (do it now so we can measure it), prayer is not the realm for science and science cannot evaluate prayer. As I mentioned, you can't use science to determined if Trump obstructed Congress, but that doesn't mean his obstruction was or was not real. It's not science but observation of reality that has to make that decision.

> I’m not understanding how you can determine it, but I can’t.

The Supreme Court is evaluating whether or not religious schools should benefit from the same governmental assets that other schools do. So, how does one determine whether such benefit falls under the establishment clause of the First Amendment? It's certainly not by science. Instead, we would determine that from people who know the field, who are familiar with how it works, and know how to interpret what they are seeing. They are able to determined things that I am not.

How does a Secret Service agent know what to look for? They are trained, and they are able to determine things that I am not. It's not a matter of science but of learning to observe reality.

How does an accountant know how to appraise a company's books? They are trained and know how to see such things, and are able to determine things that I am not.

So also with prayer. We learn the ways of God and how He does things. We study science and medicine and learn how they work. We are able to determine things that others are not. It's not a matter of science but of learning to observe reality.

Besides, from another angle, you yourself have admitted that your mostly close-minded to the whole possibility. I wouldn't think you'd be able to see things that you have already decided can't happen.

> You said, unequivocally, that there is NO way to define what an answer to prayer even looks like, but somehow you know what an answer looks like

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Through experience and learning we become versed on how it works. We learn what to look for. I'm not a hunter. You take me into the woods, I'd be clueless. But take an experienced hunter into the woods, he'll see all kinds of things that I don't even know what to look for and wouldn't have recognized them as signs anyway even if I did see them. It's not that we make things up when we see answers to prayer; we've learned what to look for, things you wouldn't have realized were signs even if you did see them, and might disagree anyway, never having learned the ways of God.

> You keep telling me prayer is effective and then immediately tell me there is now way to tell if prayer is effective.

This is not a faithful rendering of what I said. Prayer is effective, but within "the will of God." If He chooses not to answer prayer, we accept that. If He chooses to answer it differently than we expected, we learn how to see that. It's not cognitive dissonance, but rather it's not in my control; I have to learn to see the "hand" and the ways of God.

[Wicker]

This is one of the most blatant examples of cognitive dissonance I’ve seen. You are literally arguing against the very thing you’re trying to prove. You are taking my argument about why you’re wrong, using them against yourself and then just asserting you’re right.

Every single example you have provided proves my point and shows why you’re wrong. I really don’t know what to say at this point. You’re arguing against yourself.

You’re just telling me you have some secret insight that’s unavailable to me and I should just trust you.

I’ve asked over and over again how you can demonstrate that prayer is actually causing something to happen and you just respond by saying that you can’t prove things by science but prayer just works, but you don’t know why, or you can’t tell me how you know that.

[jimwalton]

> You’re just telling me you have some secret insight that’s unavailable to me and I should just trust you.

It's true that only those who know actually know. There are some things that are learned by experience and no other way. A mechanic can sometimes listen to an engine and know what's wrong. It's not a secret insight but the intuitions and assessments of someone who knows. There are people who can do that with the stock market (not me, unfortunately).

The Bible is right when it claims that it's the Holy Spirit inside of us that enables us to discern these things:

1 Cor. 2.10-15:

"these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,..."

> I’ve asked over and over again how you can demonstrate that prayer is actually causing something to happen and you just respond by saying that you can’t prove things by science but prayer just works

Exactly. There's no science to it. I can't give you a list: "Do this and prayer will work for you." Prayer is a spiritual discipline, and God, not us, controls all the mechanisms for answers.

> but you don’t know why

I do know why prayer works. Prayer works because there really is a God who cares about us, who interacts with us, and who intervenes in our world and in our lives.

> you can’t tell me how you know that

I did tell you how I know that. I know it through coming to know God and how He works, and by years of experience in prayer.