The problem with prayer.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is asking him for war, hunger, disease, and atheism (redundant, obviously, in your opinion) to go away -not- asking him for what he wants for us?

[Crossless2.0]

"Dear God, the people I witness to look at me as if I'm nuts and laugh at my apologetics. If it's your will, please help me make better arguments to convince others of your existence so we can all fulfill your greatest commandment. God? God?!?"

<Crickets>

[Whateverist]

It appears to me that He answers all prayers in 3 ways.  Yes, no, and later in the next life.  If the prayer is for wisdom, understanding, patience etc., those seem to always be granted in the affirmative, although perhaps not on our timeline.  If you pray for someone to drop dead so they cannot be elected, the answer is probably no.  If you pray for riches or personal gain, the answer may be found in the next life.  He cannot indiscriminately answer yes to everything as it does not conform to His ultimate plan for the world.

If the only requirement for prayers being answered is that the person asking be sincere, would we truly want God to grant them?  I think not a chance for obvious reasons.

Or maybe prayer just is the conscious mind reaching out to the totality of the mind for guidance?  Anyone can do it.  You don't need to reference a galaxy-shitting uber-creator to guide you.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To be clear, you do not subscribe to the notion of creation ex nihilo, then?

The structure of the argument is silent with respect to whether the physical universe always existed or whether it started at some hypothetical time 0. That said, Swedenborg did not subscribe to creation ex nihilo. His claimed that God created the universe “out of Himself”. This suggests a more neo-Platonic notion, similar to Plotinus.

1 On the quantum level, nothing from nothing isn't an accurate description of reality

It has been pointed out by many that a quantum vacuum isn’t exactly ‘nothing’ as traditionally understood. A proper atheistic response seems to be that a quantum vacuum adequately satisfied the role of necessary being. Perhaps. Deciding whether it can fill that role requires looking at additional criteria. Anything that is truly fundamental would also be non-contingent; it could not be other than how it is.
That does not seem to be the case with a quantum vacuum. A quantum vacuum follows specific physical laws that govern its capacities and behaviors. From where do these laws come? Either they are brute facts or they could have been otherwise. According to those laws (as I understand from others) the quantum vacuum is unstable. That instability means that it can exist in more than one state: productive or inert. That makes any change of state contingent some more fundamental cause. So presumably, it could be otherwise and whatever is truly fundamental must be found at a deeper level.

2 Assuming you are right, how did your classical "God" manage it - both for itself and for the Universe?

If there are absolutes, primitives, and/or fundamentals, then at some point those who wonder must accept some things as brute facts. The issue at hand is this: has the chain of explanations gone as deeply as possible? The Principle of Sufficient Reason only applies until it doesn’t. As a general rule, atheists stop too early and send boys to do the tasks of men. They take some things as brute facts, like quantum vacuum, even though those things do not satisfy the criteria for fundamentals.

3 What part(s) of the scriptural text lead inevitably to that conclusion to the exclusion of any other?

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by ‘that conclusion’. What conclusion? Anyway, we have strayed far from the OP topic of prayer.

[The Grand Nudger]

To be clear, you do not subscribe to the notion of creation ex nihilo, then?

The structure of the argument is silent with respect to whether the physical universe always existed or whether it started at some hypothetical time 0. That said, Swedenborg did not subscribe to creation ex nihilo. His claimed that God created the universe “out of Himself”. This suggests a more neo-Platonic notion, similar to Plotinus.

 I agree, and it's worth noting that scripture is silent here as well.  Since we've both assumed that from nothing, nothing comes, where did the godstuff, which is the stuff of the universe, come from?

[Whateverist]

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by ‘that conclusion’. What conclusion? Anyway, we have strayed far from the OP topic of prayer.

What do you think of my suggestion then? Do you agree that a purely inter-brain process makes adequate sense of the prayer phenomenon?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by ‘that conclusion’. What conclusion? Anyway, we have strayed far from the OP topic of prayer.

What do you think of my suggestion then?  Do you agree that a purely inter-brain process makes adequate sense of the prayer phenomenon?

If all mental processes are local to the physical brain then your suggestion is reasonable. My beliefs about mind-brain interaction lead me to a different conclusion.

[Whateverist]

What do you think of my suggestion then?  Do you agree that a purely inter-brain process makes adequate sense of the prayer phenomenon?

If all mental processes are local to the physical brain then your suggestion is reasonable. My beliefs about mind-brain interaction lead me to a different conclusion.

Fair enough.  Given the difference in our underlying assumptions that only makes sense.

[Gawdzilla]

The Bible says something about "if you pray sincerely your prayer will be answered" or some such. 

So, why has no "good and true Christian" ever prayed for an end to war, hunger, disease, or atheism?

Actually, I would imagine Christians have prayed for an end to many wars .... and their "God" has generously answered one sides prayers and worked in mysterious ways for the other side .... 

I have heard Xtians claim that WWII was a "blessing in disguise" for Japan and Germany, "Just look at them now!" 
         

[Cyberman]

1 On the quantum level, nothing from nothing isn't an accurate description of reality

It has been pointed out by many that a quantum vacuum isn’t exactly ‘nothing’ as traditionally understood. A proper atheistic response seems to be that a quantum vacuum adequately satisfied the role of necessary being. Perhaps. Deciding whether it can fill that role requires looking at additional criteria. Anything that is truly fundamental would also be non-contingent; it could not be other than how it is.
That does not seem to be the case with a quantum vacuum. A quantum vacuum follows specific physical laws that govern its capacities and behaviors. From where do these laws come? Either they are brute facts or they could have been otherwise. According to those laws (as I understand from others) the quantum vacuum is unstable. That instability means that it can exist in more than one state: productive or inert. That makes any change of state contingent some more fundamental cause. So presumably, it could be otherwise and whatever is truly fundamental must be found at a deeper level.

So you're content to take shelter behind a huge argument from ignorance? We don't know enough about any initial conditions of the Universe to conclude that a quantum vacuum at that point isn't nothing (and tradition can kiss my arse, frankly; why should anyone care about what is traditionally understood in the face of the raw bleeding edge of physics?)

"From where do these laws come?" is as asinine as "if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" You're the one proposing these laws came from a god - make your case. Don't just tell us it's a necessary being, actually paint the picture.

2 Assuming you are right, how did your classical "God" manage it - both for itself and for the Universe?

If there are absolutes, primitives, and/or fundamentals, then at some point those who wonder must accept some things as brute facts. The issue at hand is this: has the chain of explanations gone as deeply as possible? The Principle of Sufficient Reason only applies until it doesn’t. As a general rule, atheists stop too early and send boys to do the tasks of men. They take some things as brute facts, like quantum vacuum, even though those things do not satisfy the criteria for fundamentals.

And superintelligent beings with literally zero external evidence for their very existence do? The exact same explanation for millions of toys appearing in children's bedrooms every year? Before hitching one's flag to a position, isn't it at least pragmatic to exhaust every other, simpler possibilities first? Less facial egg lies that way.

3 What part(s) of the scriptural text lead inevitably to that conclusion to the exclusion of any other?

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by ‘that conclusion’. What conclusion? Anyway, we have strayed far from the OP topic of prayer.

The conclusion that reality existed before time began. Don't woryy about drifting off-topic; that happens all the time and this one is more restrained than most.