All genuine prayers are answered? Can we get some scientific data to back that up?

No? Well, unless you can prove what you're saying, you're blowing smoke and have created a wall to protect yourself from criticism.

Genuine prayers are answered? Ha! That's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

(September 29, 2009 at 11:56 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So how do you know that you were faithful enough then Rhiz?

My nose glows red when I have enough "faith" so he said to me,

"Rhizo with your nose so bright,"
"Won't you guide my sleigh tonight!"

I said, "ACK! God is talking to me!" Then the LSD wore off.

Rhizo

Something I read recently said God only has obligation to answer Christians prayers (prayers such as asking for something) but can answer non-christian prayers of the same sort.

I think that God will answer prays (such as asking Him to reveal Himself, talking to Him) of non-christians if they are genuine (ie: not thinking stuff such as ' I dont think theres a God so lets prove it wrong by praying and seeing that nothing happens' or praying for God to make stuff float )

(September 29, 2009 at 12:00 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: All genuine prayers are answered? Can we get some scientific data to back that up?

Genuine prayers are answered? Ha! That's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I'ld bet good money everything you believe in doesn't have scientific data, just experience or reason or taking things as they appear.

I don't think you can simple call it a fallacy when it could actually be the case that it is true. Is it not circular reasoning to say I dont believe it because its not true which is why I dont believe it. Your saying it is wrong because it is what it is.

(September 29, 2009 at 1:59 pm)solarwave Wrote: Something I read recently said God only has obligation to answer Christians prayers (prayers such as asking for something) but can answer non-christian prayers of the same sort.

I think that God will answer prays (such as asking Him to reveal Himself, talking to Him) of non-christians if they are genuine (ie: not thinking stuff such as ' I dont think theres a God so lets prove it wrong by praying and seeing that nothing happens' or praying for God to make stuff float )

Whether you want to challenge this supposed god or not, however you want to put it should not make a difference if he truly exists and if you are sincere, as you say.

(September 29, 2009 at 12:00 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: All genuine prayers are answered? Can we get some scientific data to back that up?

No because to do so would be contrary to the nature of God and we would know from the logic that this wasn't then an answer to prayer. Unless you can come up with something that would pass as evidence.

(September 29, 2009 at 12:00 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Genuine prayers are answered? Ha! That's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

No it isn't. It is what is always required of prayer and not something contrary or additional.

(September 29, 2009 at 1:59 pm)solarwave Wrote: I'ld bet good money everything you believe in doesn't have scientific data, just experience or reason or taking things as they appear.

And you'd be wrong. I base my entire life on accepting the truths of science, believing things when there's testable and reliable evidence to back it up. Do I get wrong at times? Of course, but I do the best I can to be appropriately skeptical.

(September 29, 2009 at 1:59 pm)solarwave Wrote: I don't think you can simple call it a fallacy when it could actually be the case that it is true. Is it not circular reasoning to say I dont believe it because its not true which is why I dont believe it. Your saying it is wrong because it is what it is.

I can because it is.

It's called a fallacy because the logic is faulty. I did not assert circular reasoning, I asserted Fr0d0 was making the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Even if we say that fr0d0's proposition is true (which I do not accept for an instant) it's still based on a fallacy and not demonstrably convincing. For example, the popularity fallacy, most people believe the world is round. And it is. However to assert the world is round because most people believe it is, does not actually make it true. It's true because science says so. Not long ago the population believed it was flat.

It may be the case that some people when they attempt to pray, are not being genuine and are not getting answers. I totally accept that in that case his assertion might be true, but you're still making a fallacy. He's saying that everyone who prays and doesn't get an answer is not a true believer. That is absurd. Regardless, fr0d0 makes assertions that we didn't really believe when we were Christians which is fallacious because a) fr0d0 can't read minds and b) he's making a no true Scotsman fallacy.

(September 29, 2009 at 2:18 pm)Retorth Wrote: Whether you want to challenge this supposed god or not, however you want to put it should not make a difference if he truly exists and if you are sincere, as you say.

"You shall not test the Lord your God" - it does make a difference.

(September 29, 2009 at 2:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No it isn't. It is what is always required of prayer and not something contrary or additional.

Of course, and when someone prayers and doesn't get an answer, they weren't properly believing. No true Scotsman.

(September 29, 2009 at 2:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 29, 2009 at 12:00 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: All genuine prayers are answered? Can we get some scientific data to back that up?

No

lol.

If you can't test, how can you know? Pure faith?