Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[LuckyR]

LuckyR,

To be correct, your definition of the word proof would be nonstandard.

Don’t you understand what I mean?

Can you give an example of the actions of the metaphysical creating a physical effect?

The fulfilment of prayer or Biblical scripture in a person's life.

I totally understand what you mean and I don't necessarily disagree with the meaning, I would just use different wording to describe it.

[Fanman]

LuckyR

I totally understand what you mean and I don't necessarily disagree with the meaning, I would just use different wording to describe it.

That's perfectly fine. What would your wording be?

[LuckyR]

LuckyR

I totally understand what you mean and I don't necessarily disagree with the meaning, I would just use different wording to describe it.

That's perfectly fine. What would your wording be?

Well like you mentioned, say a believer prays for this or that and they, in fact receive this or that, in that circumstance most would anticipate that the believer would consider the event as proof of the physical manifestation of the power of prayer. Of course though it is consistent with a physical manifestation of prayer it isn't proof of it. It could be at best evidence of it.

[Fanman]

LuckyR,

Well like you mentioned, say a believer prays for this or that and they, in fact receive this or that, in that circumstance most would anticipate that the believer would consider the event as proof of the physical manifestation of the power of prayer. Of course though it is consistent with a physical manifestation of prayer it isn't proof of it. It could be at best evidence of it.

Well, said. From my perspective, it would be hasty for a believer to do that - But in the absence of a logical explanation apart from happenstance or luck. I would consider their doing so as just about being reasonable, on the borders so to speak. However, depending upon the volume (or amount ), or accuracy to which their prayers were fulfilled or the scriptures were present in their life, it is difficult for me to gather how seriously I would take their claim. My scepticism around such issues is high. One would also have to consider how many of their prayers were fulfilled. The probability will never be on the side of a believer, but at what point (if any) should we at least open our minds to their claims?

[EricPH]

My scepticism around such issues is high.

If you have never experienced an answered prayer; then you cannot understand the profound effect you are left with. My numerous experiences can only convince me that God answers prayers. When prayers are answered, I am left with the feeling I have to do something, I have to give something back.

it is difficult for me to gather how seriously I would take their claim.

You seem to believe that you will never be affected by an answered prayer, and your beliefs will probably be proved true. By their very nature, answered prayers are a tricky phenomena to gather evidence for. That is; unless you have a personal encounter.

[LuckyR]

My scepticism around such issues is high.

If you have never experienced an answered prayer; then you cannot understand the profound effect you are left with. My numerous experiences can only convince me that God answers prayers. When prayers are answered, I am left with the feeling I have to do something, I have to give something back.

it is difficult for me to gather how seriously I would take their claim.

You seem to believe that you will never be affected by an answered prayer, and your beliefs will probably be proved true. By their very nature, answered prayers are a tricky phenomena to gather evidence for. That is; unless you have a personal encounter.

Exactly. A very powerful and compelling feeling that pretty much the subject alone will appreciate. Which is great... it's just not proof.

[Fanman]

EricPH,

If you have never experienced an answered prayer; then you cannot understand the profound effect you are left with. My numerous experiences can only convince me that God answers prayers. When prayers are answered, I am left with the feeling I have to do something, I have to give something back.

I have, and to be honest I felt a sense of gratitude and awe. But I did not instantly accept that it was a case of Providence. I could have been lucky, or maybe my own efforts led to the outcome/blessing. I do not rule out the possibility that he could have answered my prayer, but I do not believe that is the case with certainty. I am open-minded toward the circumstance.

You seem to believe that you will never be affected by an answered prayer, and your beliefs will probably be proved true. By their very nature, answered prayers are a tricky phenomena to gather evidence for. That is; unless you have a personal encounter.

I don’t, maybe I will who knows, anything is possible. My reasoning is that God is purported to be a personal being. He wants people to have faith in Jesus, therefore he will not allow his existence to be proved in a way that negates that. If he shows he is real, it will be in a personal way to someone. One of the ways he can do that is by answering prayers. As you say, it is difficult to gather evidence for prayers, unless it is so obvious that God has intervened that there is no other conclusion.

[Belindi]

'Believe in' as in 'I believe in my husband ' , and 'believe in ' as in
'I believe Queen Elizabeth II really exists'.

The first of these these meanings of 'believe in' when applied to God is a bad reason to believe in God. This is because a crisis of faith is unpleasant, and also because God's almighty providence will definitely let us down during wars and during the climate change unless we hold ourselves responsible for these.

The second of these meaning of 'believe in' when applied to God is good on the following condition: that we suspend rational disbelief for a limited time, for instance during a severe emergency such as Eric tells of, and also during periods of private prayer as it's impossible to lie to God.

[Pattern-chaser]

...God's almighty providence will definitely let us down during wars and during the climate change unless we hold ourselves responsible for these.

I think we should hold ourselves responsible for our own actions, always, without exception. I believe that God expects this of us too.

[maujsur]

I can't think of anything off the top of my head that isn't at its root existential. The defining property of life is life. But the problem is that this is not particularly useful.

[Fanman]

maujsur,

The defining property of life is life. But the problem is that this is not particularly useful.

What does that mean? Unpack it, please.

[Joshua10]

Secular science and philosophy utilises half logic in it deliberations about whether a God exists or not.It doesn’t have definitive proof of whether a God exists or not.Neither does the theist.The atheist and theist can only HOPE that a God exists or not.Sound philosophy!!!

Secular science utilises half logic to guess that a God doesn’t exist and then proceeds to utilise this half logic to invent its own science and philosophy which fails because nature does utilise half logic.Secular sciences flagship single Big Bang/Big Crunch theory has failed because it is based upon half logic and not full logic.

Natures science and philosophy adopts full balanced logic rather than half balanced logic.

[Joshua10]

Half balanced logic,

God exists,God doesn’t exist
God doesn’t exist,God exists

Full balanced logic,

God exists,God exists
God exists,God doesn’t exist
God doesn’t exist,God exists
God doesn’t exist,God doesn’t exist

[Pattern-chaser]

Secular science and philosophy utilises half logic in it deliberations about whether a God exists or not.It doesn’t have definitive proof of whether a God exists or not.Neither does the theist.The atheist and theist can only HOPE that a God exists or not.Sound philosophy!!!

Secular science utilises half logic to guess that a God doesn’t exist...

Philosophy and science, both secular and 'natural', cannot answer the question of God's existence because there is no evidence. Without evidence, we have only speculation. I don't think it has a lot to do with logic, when there is no evidence to which that logic might be applied.

[Joshua10]

Secular science and philosophy utilises half logic in it deliberations about whether a God exists or not.It doesn’t have definitive proof of whether a God exists or not.Neither does the theist.The atheist and theist can only HOPE that a God exists or not.Sound philosophy!!!

Secular science utilises half logic to guess that a God doesn’t exist...

Philosophy and science, both secular and 'natural', cannot answer the question of God's existence because there is no evidence. Without evidence, we have only speculation. I don't think it has a lot to do with logic, when there is no evidence to which that logic might be applied.

I would disagree with your view.Secular science definitely utilises +=- and -=+ as the starting point for its logic and this originates from its guess that good is bad and bad is good.This is precisely why it has developed a half logic science grounded on a mythical force (gravity) and why its science makes no connection whatsoever with the psychological workings.