Does prayer work?

[Autodidact]

I have never claimed that God has given me everything I've ever asked him for. Quite the contrary. I'm sorry I gave you that impression.

Good job at completely ignoring, or possibly missing, his point.

 

[Katzpur]

Then why did you? You were fine with arguing with me, until I responded to you, when suddenly you didn't want to defend your arguments.

I never was arguing with you, and I didn't present an argument to defend. I simply stated my opinion.

This is a discussion forum. Its purpose is discussion. Specifically, each separate forum is for debate of the subject of that forum. If you're not interested in debating, don't post.

If you don't want to read my posts, don't. Put me on ignore if it will make things easier for you. You're not the only one I'm addressing my remarks to. There is no way I can prove that prayer works, just as there is no way you can prove that it doesn't.

 

[Autodidact]

I never was arguing with you, and I didn't present an argument to defend. I simply stated my opinion.

Oh, that's different. When you said

I don't know about anybody else's prayers, but my prayers work.

it didn't sound like an opinion. Maybe you could clarify that by using a word other than "know," or by saying something like, "In my opinion." Just a suggestion.

Why would anyone think just stating their opinion, without a willingness to discuss or explore it, would be of any interest?

If you don't want to read my posts, don't. Put me on ignore if it will make things easier for you. You're not the only one I'm addressing my remarks to. There is no way I can prove that prayer works, just as there is no way you can prove that it doesn't.

Oh, again, when you said,

Actually, most Mormons on this forum are waiting much more fervently for you to knock off the never-ending insults directed at our beliefs, but it doesn't appear very likely that this will ever happen.

I got the distinct impression you were addressing me. Your problem seems to be that I'm not ignoring your posts--I'm responding to them, in the way the forum is designed for, discussion and debate. I get the impression that you're happy to disagree with others, but not so happy when others disagree with you.

 

[Sui]

Exactly. It works in exactly no way.

Again: your perception.

You seem very confused about experiments. The purpose of experiments is to allow people who don't have knowledge of something to get that knowledge. In fact there have been quite a lot of experiments that have demonstrated over and over again that prayer does not work. Doctors actually took two groups of people recovering from surgery, had people pray earnestly for one and not the other, with neither the people in the study nor the doctors studying the patients knowing who was who. The patients who were prayed for did not recover any better than those who were not. The prayer did not work.

If things actually produce actual results in the actual world, then it is not at all impossible to detect that.

Of course, you're right. I've read about plenty of experiments where the results suggest that prayer does not work. Ah, but didn't you like my previous link about successful experiments? If you don't want anything from Muslim sources, then here's the same article from a Buddhist source:
Buddhist Gateway: Article

Here are some others, too, if you'd like to take a look:
Scientific Research on Prayer

The effectivenss of prayer at a distanceas a supplement to medical treatment
(both successful and unsuccessful results are included here)

Baloney. Would you like the sites? It has been definitively established that prayer has no effect. It turned out that the only study that found any effect was cheating.

My answer for this has already been given above. The unsuccessful results you want to show me will not convince me of anything, while I am perfectly aware that my successful results most likely will not convince you of anything either. Nothing has been definitively proven by scientific means.

It doesn't matter how thoughtful they are; they have no effect. Is it your habit to believe things without evidence? If someone snaps their fingers for an end to the war, who is going to prove that their snaps did not help the soldiers in any way?

Exactly. You cannot prove something like that, no matter how hard anyone tries. The results of things we truly, definitively know as fact can be predicted and anticipated. Since the studies concerning prayer have come back so varied and inconsistent, then obviously prayer is not understood on a scientific, factual level. Something not understood by science cannot be proven by science.

This is really, really, basic logic. If they believe opposite things, they cannot all be right. A cannot be not A. Is it your habit to believe things without evidence in support? It's a simple yes or no question.

I did not say everyone is right, because of course that is logically impossible. I said "they are not wrong in following their beliefs". Even if I disagree with someone, that person has every right to keep on believing whatever they want, just like they have the right to be respected for it.

As for your question...if you want to put it blatantly in black and white terms, then yes, there are things I believe in that have no scientific support. How about you then. Do you make it a habit to limit yourself by man's own limited understanding? I'm not saying that I know everything, as that's really something extremely amusing. But surely we can't assume that modern science or even future science will know everything either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have never claimed that God has given me everything I've ever asked him for. Quite the contrary. I'm sorry I gave you that impression.

I didn't get that impression. My point was just that regardless of one's position on this issue, it's obvious (at least, I hope it should be obvious) that God does not grant every request made of Him. Personally, I don't think any requests of God are granted at all, because I don't believe God exists in the first place.

However, I recognize something: the corollary to the claim that God does answer prayers is that a God exists who is perfectly capable of answering prayers, but for some reason does not.

I think that any possible reason for this would fall into one of three categories:

- characteristics of God (e.g. the whole "God hates amputees" thing, or the idea that God has a more perfect knowledge that lets Him see how things that appear horrendous are actually for the best)
- characteristics of those doing the praying (e.g. they're the wrong religion, or they're just not praying the right way)
- characteristics of those being prayed for (e.g. they're the wrong religion, or they just don't deserve healing)

Basically, I think the suggestion that God answers prayers also introduces the idea that He answers some but not others, as well as the question "why?".

 

[Autodidact]

Again: your perception.

No, the facts.

Of course, you're right. I've read about plenty of experiments where the results suggest that prayer does not work. Ah, but didn't you like my previous link about successful experiments? If you don't want anything from Muslim sources, then here's the same article from a Buddhist source:
Buddhist Gateway: Article

I'm familiar with all the research in this field, and the sum total result shows that prayer does not work. For example, let's take your first link. It reports on some amazing results with plants. It turns out to be the bogus "work" of Rev. Loehr from 1959. Rev. Loehr was a minister and psychic proponent. I'm not saying the guy was an utter liar, but no one has ever replicated his work, and more recently when someone tried, they found that Prayer and thought are ineffective stimulants to plant growth, a group of students reported yesterday. An experiment conducted as part of the course work of Social Relations 71 revealed, in fact, a tendency for the control plants to grow more than those prayed for or thought about. Harvard Crimson

It's not just, some studies say one, some another. You have to look at the methodology and, most important, the replicability, of the results. The sum total of all the research is that it doesn't work.

Here are some others, too, if you'd like to take a look:
Scientific Research on Prayer

The effectivenss of prayer at a distanceas a supplement to medical treatment
(both successful and unsuccessful results are included here)



My answer for this has already been given above. The unsuccessful results you want to show me will not convince me of anything, while I am perfectly aware that my successful results most likely will not convince you of anything either. Nothing has been definitively proven by scientific means.

Nothing has ever been definitively proven by scientific means; that's not how science works. The question is, what does the evidence tend to show? The evidence tends to show that prayer does absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zero, for anyone or anything outside the person praying.

Exactly. You cannot prove something like that, no matter how hard anyone tries. The results of things we truly, definitively know as fact can be predicted and anticipated. Since the studies concerning prayer have come back so varied and inconsistent, then obviously prayer is not understood on a scientific, factual level. Something not understood by science cannot be proven by science.

No, science has shown that praying for people to get well does not get them well. It's not complicated. There is either an observed effect, or there isn't. There isn't.

Science can study lots of things it doesn't understand; that's what science is for--to help us understand things that we don't.

I did not say everyone is right, because of course that is logically impossible. I said "they are not wrong in following their beliefs". Even if I disagree with someone, that person has every right to keep on believing whatever they want, just like they have the right to be respected for it.

I'm not talking about their rights, of course everyone has the right to be wrong. I'm talking about whether they're correct or not. If you believe that prayer affects the world, you are incorrect in that belief. It's your perfect right to be incorrect, but why would you want to?

As for your question...if you want to put it blatantly in black and white terms, then yes, there are things I believe in that have no scientific support. How about you then.

No, I base my beliefs on the evidence.

Do you make it a habit to limit yourself by man's own limited understanding?

No, I use both man's and woman's understanding.

I'm not saying that I know everything, as that's really something extremely amusing. But surely we can't assume that modern science or even future science will know everything either.

Of course not, we only know a tiny bit. But what we do know we know via science and evidence. If it is your habit to believe things without evidence, I have some money in a bank account in Nigeria; will you help me get it out?

 

[Katzpur]

I didn't get that impression. My point was just that regardless of one's position on this issue, it's obvious (at least, I hope it should be obvious) that God does not grant every request made of Him.

Apparently I didn't miss your point then, as Autodict seemed to think. Essentially I said the same thing as you did -- that God does not grant every request made of Him. As I said, He hasn't given me everything I've ever asked Him for.

However, I recognize something: the corollary to the claim that God does answer prayers is that a God exists who is perfectly capable of answering prayers, but for some reason does not.

I think that any possible reason for this would fall into one of three categories:

- characteristics of God (e.g. the whole "God hates amputees" thing, or the idea that God has a more perfect knowledge that lets Him see how things that appear horrendous are actually for the best)
- characteristics of those doing the praying (e.g. they're the wrong religion, or they're just not praying the right way)
- characteristics of those being prayed for (e.g. they're the wrong religion, or they just don't deserve healing)

Basically, I think the suggestion that God answers prayers also introduces the idea that He answers some but not others, as well as the question "why?".

Well, here are my thoughts on each of those three possible reasons:

1. I think you're on to something with this one, although I probably look at it far less cynically than you do. As an analogy, a parent takes a small child to the doctor for his vaccinations. He submits his child, who adores and trusts him and who looks at him to protect him, to pain. He does so intentionally, despite the child's cries and obvious bewilderment at the betrayal and cruelty. The parent, of course, does have a reason for doing so and really does have a knowledge and understanding the child can't possibly have. There will ultimately be something good come out of the pain, even though it is inconceivable to the child.

2. Essentially, I disagree with this almost entirely. I don't believe God discriminates against anyone who comes to Him in faith. I believe He hears all prayers directed to Him, regardless of the beliefs of the person praying.

3. I also disagree with this one, but probably to a lesser extent than I disagree with reason number 2. I suspect that the worthiness of the person for whom the prayers are being offered does figure into the equation, but again, probably not in quite the way you are thinking. I don't think God just lets some people suffer with cancer because they "deserve" to, but if He tells us not to do something and we do it anyway, He does let us suffer the consequences of our choices. The bottom line is that bad things do happen to good people and there isn't always a logical (to us) explanation.

I do believe there are times that God does intervene, however, and that He wants us to ask for His help. In asking, we recognize that He is the one in control. We acknowledge His power, but also His wisdom in making a decision we can't always understand.

 

[Sui]

No, the facts.

The facts of whom? Scientists with limited understanding.

I'm familiar with all the research in this field, and the sum total result shows that prayer does not work. For example, let's take your first link. It reports on some amazing results with plants. It turns out to be the bogus "work" of Rev. Loehr from 1959. Rev. Loehr was a minister and psychic proponent. I'm not saying the guy was an utter liar, but no one has ever replicated his work, and more recently when someone tried, they found that Prayer and thought are ineffective stimulants to plant growth, a group of students reported yesterday. An experiment conducted as part of the course work of Social Relations 71 revealed, in fact, a tendency for the control plants to grow more than those prayed for or thought about. Harvard Crimson

It's not just, some studies say one, some another. You have to look at the methodology and, most important, the replicability, of the results. The sum total of all the research is that it doesn't work.

Ah, you're right. It seems many experiments in this field have not been conducted properly, including some that I had mentioned. I admit I didn't do all of my homework in that respect. Although I find it interesting that every study considered credible has produced results not in favor of prayer. Let's say hypothetically for a moment that prayer does not work. Wouldn't there still be plenty of cases where the control groups did worse than the variable ones, since prayer is supposedly nothing more than chance?

Nothing has ever been definitively proven by scientific means; that's not how science works. The question is, what does the evidence tend to show? The evidence tends to show that prayer does absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zero, for anyone or anything outside the person praying.

Well then, I find it confusing when you tell me here that nothing has ever been definitely proven by scientific means, but in a previous post of yours (#97) you stated, "it has been definitively established that prayer has no effect". Surely science has proven things. For example, it has been definitively established that eyes use light to see; that without a brain we cannot function; that without water we cannot survive. However the study of prayer obviously is not that simple, regardless of how much anyone wants to believe it is.

No, science has shown that praying for people to get well does not get them well. It's not complicated. There is either an observed effect, or there isn't. There isn't.

But it is complicated. We cannot tell people to pray for others who are hospitalized and then expect positive results every time, or even at all. There is an element in this field that cannot be measured: God. Whether you believe in His existence or not is not the point; it is that if science truly wants to prove something, all aspects must be taken into consideration. The true nature of prayer and God cannot be crammed into an experiment. If all the prayers were perfect, who's to say that God did not reject them due to His perfect foresight? Science has no way to prove or disprove this and therefore it is completely lacking the proper understanding and grounds to conduct any reliable research, whether the results be in favor of prayer or not.

Science can study lots of things it doesn't understand; that's what science is for--to help us understand things that we don't.

Yes, that is what science is for, but you altered my words again. I said, "something not understood by science cannot be proven by science". Scientists can study whatever they want, but it cannot go around claiming definitive results when the subject being studied isn't even understood. That's like me claiming to have discovered undeniable proof of evolution without even understanding the first thing about biology.

I'm not talking about their rights, of course everyone has the right to be wrong. I'm talking about whether they're correct or not. If you believe that prayer affects the world, you are incorrect in that belief. It's your perfect right to be incorrect, but why would you want to?

If what you've given me so far is considered irrefutable fact, then I'll take my chances being 'incorrect'.

No, I use both man's and woman's understanding.

Interesting, but I know you understood my point. The human mind is limited, therefore our knowledge is limited.

Of course not, we only know a tiny bit. But what we do know we know via science and evidence. If it is your habit to believe things without evidence, I have some money in a bank account in Nigeria; will you help me get it out?

Okay, yes, we only know a tiny bit. So who's to say this tiny bit holds all the pieces to definitely prove that prayer is either effective or ineffective? It doesn't, and it is (to me) naive to assume it does.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

I think the problem with prayer is we too often try to change God's will to our will. If that is your goal when praying, it won't work. If your purpose in praying is to try and find out God's will and align yourself with it, that absolutely works. I know this much.

 

[Xaxyx]

The facts of whom? Scientists with limited understanding.

It really doesn't take a deep and powerful mind to perform a simple test and analyze it. I'll even show you how to do your own, personal Prayer Power™ test; see below.

Ah, you're right. It seems many experiments in this field have not been conducted properly, including some that I had mentioned. I admit I didn't do all of my homework in that respect. Although I find it interesting that every study considered credible has produced results not in favor of prayer. Let's say hypothetically for a moment that prayer does not work. Wouldn't there still be plenty of cases where the control groups did worse than the variable ones, since prayer is supposedly nothing more than chance?

Absolutely so. Case in point: take a coin. Close your eyes and pray to any preferred deity that it comes up heads. Flip it.

Did it come up heads? Great; then you've just conducted an experiment that would seem to indicate that prayer works! One hundred percent of your attempts came up the way you expected! Clearly that's an impressive result. You should immediately publish your findings in the scientific community.

Well then, I find it confusing when you tell me here that nothing has ever been definitely proven by scientific means, but in a previous post of yours (#97) you stated, "it has been definitively established that prayer has no effect". Surely science has proven things. For example, it has been definitively established that eyes use light to see; that without a brain we cannot function; that without water we cannot survive. However the study of prayer obviously is not that simple, regardless of how much anyone wants to believe it is.

Yes, it really is that simple. You conduct an experiment; you analyze the results. The more times you repeat the experiment, the more assured you can be that the results are consistent. Prayer has been tested for efficacy countless times. The results are always consistent with random chance. Always.

It is equally irrational, and thus equally meaningless, to question the reliability of any scientific or mathematical principle that defines the results of an event involving random chance, simply by merit of the fact that random chance is involved. Coin-flipping, for example. I could merrily insist that it is +1% more likely for pennies to be flipped as heads on Tuesdays. And I could scoff at your silly physics formulas and chortle at your reams and reams of scientific data that would seem to demonstrate otherwise. After all, you can't *prove* I'm wrong. You can't *prove* that coin-flipping is unaffected by the day of the week. No matter how many times you flip the coin, I can simply shrug my shoulders, wiggle my fingers, and declare that your data is faulty, that there's no way you can demonstrate, wholly and entirely, that my principle lacks any influence. There will be studies performed on Tuesdays with more heads. There will be studies performed on Tuesdays with more tails. It's too complex! We'll never know for sure! Egads!

But it is complicated. We cannot tell people to pray for others who are hospitalized and then expect positive results every time, or even at all. There is an element in this field that cannot be measured: God. Whether you believe in His existence or not is not the point; it is that if science truly wants to prove something, all aspects must be taken into consideration. The true nature of prayer and God cannot be crammed into an experiment. If all the prayers were perfect, who's to say that God did not reject them due to His perfect foresight? Science has no way to prove or disprove this and therefore it is completely lacking the proper understanding and grounds to conduct any reliable research, whether the results be in favor of prayer or not.

Similarly, this godlike being to whom you refer may, on a whim, decide to punish those for whom you pray by killing them even more rapidly and often. Or there could be three gods, who mud wrestle for the privilege of deciding how to answer prayers that day. Or little green men in light bulbs. And so forth.

But none of these silly theories are ever born out in any scientific study. Never are the results clearly and obviously influenced by some consistent principle or force outside of the established guidelines. Indeed: there is no meaningful, rational distinction between these undetectable influences, and random chance itself. Thus, they are all equally meaningless, and ignorable.

Yes, that is what science is for, but you altered my words again. I said, "something not understood by science cannot be proven by science". Scientists can study whatever they want, but it cannot go around claiming definitive results when the subject being studied isn't even understood. That's like me claiming to have discovered undeniable proof of evolution without even understanding the first thing about biology.

Science doesn't seek to prove anything. Science seeks to draw hypotheses, principles and theories based on the evidence at hand. But you seem to imply that since there might be magical faeries living in the woods mucking around with my experiment results, then nothing, absolutely nothing that I study using the scientific method can ever be reliable. Thus, science itself is completely useless, and random chaos prevails.

Is that truly your stance? That all of humanity's ability to reason based on evidence is worthless, since there's always the possibility of legerdemain going on behind the scenes? That seems like a pretty depressing universe, to me. No, I for one prefer to assume that we can trust the conclusions we draw based on reason.

- Xaxyx

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, here are my thoughts on each of those three possible reasons:

1. I think you're on to something with this one, although I probably look at it far less cynically than you do. As an analogy, a parent takes a small child to the doctor for his vaccinations. He submits his child, who adores and trusts him and who looks at him to protect him, to pain. He does so intentionally, despite the child's cries and obvious bewilderment at the betrayal and cruelty. The parent, of course, does have a reason for doing so and really does have a knowledge and understanding the child can't possibly have. There will ultimately be something good come out of the pain, even though it is inconceivable to the child.

I can see some merit in this viewpoint, though when I look at the entire spectrum of human suffering, I don't think I can accept that there's a good reason for all of it that we just can't appreciate. To a child, a vaccination would be a source of pain, but abuse would be as well.

2. Essentially, I disagree with this almost entirely. I don't believe God discriminates against anyone who comes to Him in faith. I believe He hears all prayers directed to Him, regardless of the beliefs of the person praying.

Fair enough. I only included it because I think that there are some people who believe that their religion has some special hotline to God.

3. I also disagree with this one, but probably to a lesser extent than I disagree with reason number 2. I suspect that the worthiness of the person for whom the prayers are being offered does figure into the equation, but again, probably not in quite the way you are thinking. I don't think God just lets some people suffer with cancer because they "deserve" to, but if He tells us not to do something and we do it anyway, He does let us suffer the consequences of our choices. The bottom line is that bad things do happen to good people and there isn't always a logical (to us) explanation.

I suppose I can appreciate that: sort of suffering as physical consequence, not necessarily as the result of a judgement. A skull fracture isn't so much "punishment" for falling off a cliff as it is just the logical consequence... right?

I do think that this would only apply to certain things, though. For example, I can't see how any condition we're born with could be considered a "consequence" for our actions.

I do believe there are times that God does intervene, however, and that He wants us to ask for His help. In asking, we recognize that He is the one in control. We acknowledge His power, but also His wisdom in making a decision we can't always understand.

I suppose that if you think God wants you to pray to Him, then that's probably enough: God wants you to do it, so you do it. If that's the motivation, then whether He actually does what you ask Him is secondary.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Why is pain such a substantial part of life? Whether emotional, physical, spiritual or any other kind pain is part of life. Everyone's life. Pain and suffering is part of the reason for being here in the first place. This life is a chance to learn and grow. To become more like our Father. The ultimate goal is lasting happiness and joy. We can never experience the kind of exquisite joy that God wants us to without pain. There must be opposition in all things. You cannot appreciate warm if you have never felt cold.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

We cannot explain everything that happens in life. We don't see the whole picture. This life is not the end and it was not the beginning. The things we do in this life affect what will happen in the next. Things that happened before this life can affect us now. When we are born with apparent disadvantages, it can be easy to pass judgement on God and say "how can you have done that?" In fact, I often struggle with understanding why there is so much inequality in the world. This may sound dumb but for me the question is "Why do I have so much when others have so little?" "Why do I have a healthy, functional body when other people are blind or only have one arm or are born with a terrible disease? Why was I born in a time when there is so much knowledge and enlightenment? Why was I born to such a loving, caring family? Why was I blessed to have so much?"
I'll tell you why, I don't know. But I do know that one day it will all make sense. I don't know all the answers, but God does. You may think that it is folly for me to think in this way. I don't blame you. It sounds like folly at first. Trusting in God is a transforming process. We learn to trust gradually as we try to follow his commandments. As we slowly learn to put faith in him, our faith grows from a dim spark into a burning flame. But it starts with baby steps. It starts with a desire to know God. It starts with the first time we really humble ourselves and kneel down and ask God for help. We all need him. And he needs us. He loves us and wants us to talk to him. He can understand us and our problems. He knows what we struggle with and what we are going through. He knows how to help us. That's why we need to pray to him.

 

[Katzpur]

I can see some merit in this viewpoint, though when I look at the entire spectrum of human suffering, I don't think I can accept that there's a good reason for all of it that we just can't appreciate. To a child, a vaccination would be a source of pain, but abuse would be as well.

Agreed. Actually I believe (and my Church teaches) that there are many reasons that suffering exists. These three come to mind:

(1) There are times when God allows us to suffer in order to strengthen us -- kind of a "refiner's fire" thing, or for some other reason that will ultimately be for our best good. We Latter-day Saints believe that "there must needs be opposition in all things." We can't truly appreciate or even comprehend any of the good things we have without having experienced the bad things. Sickness and health, sadness and happiness, despair and hope, etc.

(2) At other times, though, we suffer because God has given each of us our agency, the right to choose right from wrong. A great many people choose to misuse their agency and do things to hurt other people. Evil people murder, rape, abuse and molest innocent people. To the innocent, it doesn't seem fair, but if God were to take away one person's agency in order to protect another person, He might as well take away everyone's agency entirely.

(3) God created a universe in which He would allow natural law to operate much of the time. There would be floods, hurricanes, toronados, tsunamis, volcanos, earthquakes and diseases of all kinds. When hundreds of thousands of people are affected by a single natural disaster, people wonder how a loving God could allow such a thing. It makes me wonder what the alternative would be. I suppose God could pick them off one by one in different parts of the world. A few hundred could die in a plane crash, a few thousand could die in automobile wrecks, several thousand more could die of cancer or heart disease or AIDS and nobody would think twice about it. Unless the person who died was a loved one, the average person accepts that people die and that, as sad as it is, it's part of life. It's only when a great many are affected at one time that people start jumping down God's throat.

Fair enough. I only included it because I think that there are some people who believe that their religion has some special hotline to God.

True. A lot of people do.

I suppose I can appreciate that: sort of suffering as physical consequence, not necessarily as the result of a judgement. A skull fracture isn't so much "punishment" for falling off a cliff as it is just the logical consequence... right?

Right.

I do think that this would only apply to certain things, though. For example, I can't see how any condition we're born with could be considered a "consequence" for our actions.

Agreed.

I suppose that if you think God wants you to pray to Him, then that's probably enough: God wants you to do it, so you do it. If that's the motivation, then whether He actually does what you ask Him is secondary.

That's more or less what I was getting at. I do believe He responds to many of our requests, but only when it will ultimately be for our best good. That, of course, raises another question: If He only gives us what will be best for us, is He really answering our prayers at all? Isn't He just doing what He would do whether we prayed or not? And why should we think that our asking Him made any difference? From my perspective, it gets back to His desire that we communicate with Him, that we develop a close relationship with Him, and that we learn to trust that He knows what's best for us. I believe He wants us to be happy and, like any loving parent, will give us whatever will make us happy, provided what we want is also good for us to have.

 

[Xaxyx]

I'll tell you why, I don't know. But I do know that one day it will all make sense.

How do you know this?

I don't know all the answers, but God does.

And how do you know this?

You may think that it is folly for me to think in this way. I don't blame you. It sounds like folly at first. Trusting in God is a transforming process. We learn to trust gradually as we try to follow his commandments. As we slowly learn to put faith in him, our faith grows from a dim spark into a burning flame. But it starts with baby steps. It starts with a desire to know God. It starts with the first time we really humble ourselves and kneel down and ask God for help. We all need him.

This is demonstrably untrue. I do not need your god. I furthermore resent your inclusion of me in your sample set without first polling my opinion.

And he needs us. He loves us and wants us to talk to him. He can understand us and our problems. He knows what we struggle with and what we are going through. He knows how to help us.

How could an omnipotent being have needs? Why does an omniscient being need to be informed? Why does an omnibenevolent being withhold his assistance until petitioned?

That's why we need to pray to him.

Again, I have no such need.

- Xaxyx

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

How do you know this?

Because of the Holy Ghost, which speaks to the heart of man.

And how do you know this?

You learn more about someone as you get to know them better. I have learned through personal experience to trust God. He doesn't lie. He said "Take my yoke upon you for my burden is easy and my yoke is light." If we come unto him and have faith in him, he will guide us through all our problems.

This is demonstrably untrue. I do not need your god. I furthermore resent your inclusion of me in your sample set without first polling my opinion.

I'm sorry you resent it, but it doesn't change anything.

How could an omnipotent being have needs? Why does an omniscient being need to be informed? Why does an omnibenevolent being withhold his assistance until petitioned?

The reason is that in order for him to help us, we must first make an effort to seek his help. He can only truly help us when we seek to know and follow him. That is why he needs us. He needs us to cooperate so that he can help us. It's like he said "I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

Again, I have no such need.

- Xaxyx

I realize that you probably really don't see the need. That's okay. There will come a time when you do. Either in this life or the next. When that time comes, remember, he will always be there to help us.

 

[logician]

1. Prayer is to be made with sincerely good intentions. Sure, people make them with cruel intentions, I don't doubt that. But what goes around comes around. That's a whole new direction however.



2. Being logical is important, I agree. My religious mentality does not affect my ability to see and act upon reality, believe it or not.



3. Prayer by itself is meant to be thoughtful, reflective. Praying is void if that's all I do, because prayer is based upon sincerity and intention. If I pray for a sick person, but totally ignore my ability to help them, then my prayer meant nothing anyway.



Okay.



4. No, it isn't a time issue. I don't know when my prayer's going to be answered, or if it ever will be. Though it's personal perspective I suppose.


.

1. Really, who made up that rule, and what is good? Good to a fundmentalist Xian may be quite different that good to a fundametnalist Islam

2. I would say most prayers have nothing in common with logic.

3. Again, this in only for you, not them.

4. The old "will of Allah"?

 

[Xaxyx]

Because of the Holy Ghost, which speaks to the heart of man.

How does this entity communicate with you? And what makes this entity correct?

You learn more about someone as you get to know them better. I have learned through personal experience to trust God. He doesn't lie. He said "Take my yoke upon you for my burden is easy and my yoke is light." If we come unto him and have faith in him, he will guide us through all our problems.

That this entity has never lied to you does not, in turn, allow us to conclude that it never lies. I have never lied to you; does that mean you trust me implicitly as well?

I'm sorry you resent it, but it doesn't change anything.

Of course it does. You made a claim about every single person on the face of the Earth. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. I do not need your god. You cannot and will not speak for me. If you're truly sorry, then you will retract your claim about me.

The reason is that in order for him to help us, we must first make an effort to seek his help. He can only truly help us when we seek to know and follow him. That is why he needs us. He needs us to cooperate so that he can help us. It's like he said "I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."'

He can't help us if we don't want him to? So we control him? How then can he be omnipotent?

I realize that you probably really don't see the need. That's okay. There will come a time when you do. Either in this life or the next. When that time comes, remember, he will always be there to help us.

You can predict the future?

- Xaxyx

 

[Sui]

1. Really, who made up that rule, and what is good? Good to a fundmentalist Xian may be quite different that good to a fundametnalist Islam

2. I would say most prayers have nothing in common with logic.

3. Again, this in only for you, not them.

4. The old "will of Allah"?

1. I had no idea we were talking about extremists here. I'm talking about moderate people who genuinely pray for good, where good means positive, beneficial, whatever word you would like to put there.

2. Illogical in your perspective is not illogical in mine.

3. The thoughfulness and reflection is personal, yes. But there I was addressing a point that had been made about the difference between prayer and action, which has everything to do with the effects on other people.

4. The will of Allah, definitely.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

2. Illogical in your perspective is not illogical in mine.

I hate to step into the middle of this, but we spent about a month correcting a couple of Christians, and you should be shown the same courtesy:
Logic has no "perspective". It is not "relative" to anyone or anything. The discipline of logic has only set of recognized rules that are applied universally.

At the risk of speaking for you, I believe that you are trying to say that you reject the premise that logician is basing his position on. If you wish to make that assertion, fine. Please don't take us down that path again, though, where we have to explain that there is no such thing as "atheist logic" or "Islamic logic" or "Christian logic".