What Is The Point Of Prayer?

[Sword of Christ]

It's an attempt at putting something hard to explain in an understandable way, seeing we all know what Star Wars is. God is less a Force more an intangible loving presence who is immanent within the universe and transcendent beyond it. In him we live move and have our being so all that business. God is also a Trinity of three persons though this is all one undivided God. If we're talking about spiritual healing from God then what we're talking there is a technique no so much a request. Catholics do make requests of angels and the Saints who would be able in theory to deliver what is requested of them through God in this manner.

[Jackalope]

that atheists when they use the word "god" are referring to the God of the Bible.

I don't presume to speak for all atheists, but when I refer to the God of Abraham, I use the word 'God' (or 'Allah'). For all others, I use the word 'god'.

I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself, but I do not do as you do. In general, when I am speaking of generic deity, I say "god", when I am speaking of a specific deity, I will say "your god", or "the christian god", etc.

I don't use the capitalized form for the Abrahamaic god because I feel that implies undue legitimacy over the uncountable other gods man has invented, all of which appear to be equal horseshit to me.

[Gil Gaudia]

Also, since you seem to believe that you "have a very advanced understanding of God/theology," how "would (you) think of God"?

I have a more advanced understanding of God but I'm not claiming to be have an advanced understanding, not yet anyway. The basic idea would be to think of God not as a man with a beard up in the sky but more as a Force from Star Wars, an all pervasive presence. Bear in mind there is no "dark side" to it that comes purely from human sin. If we're talking about something like say miracles and/or healing it has to be done through someone who is capable of drawing upon Gods power, or the Force if you want to call it that. This is really more of a interactive kind of experience God alone doesn't really do anything as such, beyond maintain the universe in existence. This is the way to understand the subject of prayer if you're talking about using it for a practical purpose such as healing a bullet wound. The best you're probably going to expect to achieve if you really spiritualist yourself up is aid or enhance the recovery speed. But different people will have a different degree of talent for this much like anything else. If you just have a random group of well meaning people holding hands and chanting something or other in a room somewhere and not really knowing all the details of what it they're meant to be doing and how it's meant to work, then nothing at all will happen.

In addition, since you identify yourself as "Sword of Christ" and "Church of England," it would be reasonable to assume that you hold some ideas about Jesus and God that is consistent with these concepts.

Intercessory prayer is a request to God or Jesus to change his mind about the already established plan for the universe and make it go another way. Of course, this implies that a perfect deity's plans, which would (by definition) have to be perfect, should now be altered at the urging of an imperfect being. This is logical reason enough to refute the possibility of intercessory prayer's effect, because perfect beings cannot be outguessed by fallible mortals. Nevertheless, believers in the power of gods, saints, and angels claim that these agents are able to alter or suspend the well-established laws of the universe at their whim or at the request of the believer, through prayer.
If we were speaking of magic or sorcery, or any belief systems outside of Western Judeo-Christian tradition, most would agree that these ideas (of intercessory prayer's effectiveness) are ridiculous and consist of superstition at best. In only one area, the field of Judeo-Christian theology, are the very same phantasms accorded the status of legitimate entity. Why? Why are Judeo-Christian superstitions by any accepted taxonomy of logic allowed to maintain a grip on, not only political, social and economic values in our society, but on scientific ones as well?

If I am unable to decipher your response to the above, I will stick to my guess about your disingenuousness, and retreat from this area of discussion.

[Sword of Christ]

Intercessory prayer is a request to God or Jesus to change his mind about the already established plan for the universe and make it go another way.

Oooh now that's a freewill killer right there. No our lives aren't mapped out because we have right here some degree of independence from God. I think it's somewhat vital that we have freewill and there is no way atheism or naturalism would allow us to have it (chemical reaction, neurons, instincts, programming etc). Neither would deterministic theism. The central theme of the Bible as a whole is that we are independent beings with our own independent will but with a morality grounded in God. As for Gods relationship with time I'd recommend reading Lane Craigs book Time and Eternity, God essentially exists in relationship to time as we do while the universe exists. Though can still exist without the universe and exist beyond time. So there is no preset plan for our lives individually and if there were then any change he would make would have been part of the plan anyway.

Of course, this implies that a perfect deity's plans, which would (by definition) have to be perfect, should now be altered at the urging of an imperfect being. This is logical reason enough to refute the possibility of intercessory prayer's effect

It would be logical but then I rejected your premise that God sets everything in our future out ahead of time so this is a moot point.

because perfect beings cannot be outguessed by fallible mortals. Nevertheless, believers in the power of gods, saints, and angels claim that these agents are able to alter or suspend the well-established laws of the universe at their whim or at the request of the believer, through prayer.

The function of miracles would just be an extension of the natural laws as defined by God as it exists. Nothing would be suspended or violated. We don't get to say what can and can't happen we get to understand the natural order of the universe with our God given reason and understand the nature of God thorough our personal experience and the revelation he has seen fit to give us, in the Bible and the gospels. Everything you need to know right there (that isn't specifically scientific but we can cover those details ourselves)

If we were speaking of magic or sorcery, or any belief systems outside of Western Judeo-Christian tradition, most would agree that these ideas (of intercessory prayer's effectiveness) are ridiculous and consist of superstition at best.

There is a magic branch within the Judeo-Christian tradition. This is when you get into alchemy and that kind of thing, something Issac Newton was into. I suppose you could call it the "Western Esoteric Tradition", I have a bit of an interest in it myself.

In only one area, the field of Judeo-Christian theology, are the very same phantasms accorded the status of legitimate entity. Why? Why are Judeo-Christian superstitions by any accepted taxonomy of logic allowed to maintain a grip on, not only political, social and economic values in our society, but on scientific ones as well?

Because it is true and of real value to human life, society and culture one way or another. This is God we're talking about here, the ultimate be all and end all. Luminous beings are we not this crude matter.

[Minimalist]

God is less a Force more an intangible loving presence who is immanent within the universe and transcendent beyond it.

Um, newbie or not, I can't let you get away with that routine. Every other theist on here is told to provide actual evidence this his/her particular sky-daddy is real.

Once you can establish that "god" is at all, then you can start to tell us what he/she can do.

P.S. - forget the friggin' bible. That's a load of crap just like the koran, the popul vuh and the book of the dead.

[Bad Writer]

All I've heard is a lot of masturbatory oration, but there's nothing that can possibly lead to a climactic ending.

Edit:

This means there's no conclusive evidence for these claims.

[Minimalist]

There never is.

[Sword of Christ]

Um, newbie or not, I can't let you get away with that routine. Every other theist on here is told to provide actual evidence this his/her particular sky-daddy is real.

I may as well ask you to provide evidence that the universe exploded out of nothing at all for no reason and randomly happened to be 100% structured for the formation of life over an intricate process involving billions of years of stellar and galactic evolution was through an incredible blind coincidence. I may as well ask you to provide evidence that you're nothing but a series of chemical reactions with no independent freewill of your own. But you know all this atheism stuff is actually baloney anyway.

Once you can establish that "god" is at all, then you can start to tell us what he/she can do.

The topic was about how prayer works not whether God exists. If God didn't exist then what do you think prayer is and why do people do it? Is there a good evolutionary purpose behind it?

P.S. - forget the friggin' bible. That's a load of crap just like the koran, the popul vuh and the book of the dead.

Is it? Why do you think that?

[Esquilax]

I may as well ask you to provide evidence that the universe exploded out of nothing at all for no reason and randomly happened to be 100% structured for the formation of life over an intricate process involving billions of years of stellar and galactic evolution was through an incredible blind coincidence.

Isn't it good, then, that you didn't ask that, and display a staggering ignorance, not only of the big bang theory but also the burden of proof and the position of most atheists. Isn't it fortuitous that I don't have to sit here now and explain to you that your description of the big bang there is an idiotic and previously refuted strawman, and that the actual big bang theory doesn't involve an explosion for no reason. Aren't you happy that I don't have to remind you that, of the two of us, it is the creationist account of life that involves something coming from nothing for no reason, not the big bang theory? Doesn't it save time for me not to have to point out to you that the majority of the universe isn't structured for life, that the parts of it that are aren't ideal for it, and that your meaningless anthropomorphization of the formation of the universe is ineffective as an argument because it's only even an issue if we take a designer as read; it's defining a problem into existence, and without a designer there is also no design, and thus the chances of something happening the way it did are moot.

Isn't it nice that I don't have to waste my time posting this evidence for the big bang? And isn't it equally nice that I don't have to remind you that what I just posted is real evidence and not just a series of assertions, like your position has been so far?

Wow, you would look really bad if I had to do all that...

I may as well ask you to provide evidence that you're nothing but a series of chemical reactions with no independent freewill of your own.

Again, it's lucky you didn't! Because you would just look like a fucking dumbass if you did, given that this isn't an atheist position, and I'd have to remind you that the burden of proof lies on you, if you want to claim that there's something more than that.

But you know all this atheism stuff is actually baloney anyway.

Oh, well, I was going with humorous obfuscations until now, but seriously, if you're genuinely broaching this point, go fuck yourself.

The topic was about how prayer works not whether God exists. If God didn't exist then what do you think prayer is and why do people do it?

Because they're wrong. The existence of prayer doesn't mean prayer works, or do you say the same of not allowing black cats to cross your path?

Is there a good evolutionary purpose behind it?

No, because prayer is a sociological phenomenon. If you wanted the evolutionary purpose behind fostering the kinds of beliefs that would lead to religion I could make a case, though.

[Sword of Christ]

Isn't it good, then, that you didn't ask that, and display a staggering ignorance, not only of the big bang theory

That's not what I'm asking about. Where did the laws of physics that created the BBT we understand originate? Why did it happen the way it did and not some other way that wouldn't have produced life? And we know for a fact life wouldn't exist in this universe had anything happened differently.

but also the burden of proof and the position of most atheists.

The that something of this magnitude was a purely some kind chance coincidence that doesn't exist for any kind of specific purpose is a very big claim to make. This isn't a trivial thing to believe in.

Isn't it fortuitous that I don't have to sit here now and explain to you that your description of the big bang there is an idiotic and previously refuted strawman

The science behind the BB and the cosmological formation of the universe is perfectly fine I'm not trying to argue about that.

and that the actual big bang theory doesn't involve an explosion for no reason.

Reason as in it was intentionally created for the purpose of forming/evolving organic life/civilisations and all that kind of thing. It makes sense that the most complex final outcome was the initial direction behind it. Otherwise it "just happened" by chance. You know this is all a bit unlikely.

Aren't you happy that I don't have to remind you that, of the two of us, it is the creationist account of life that involves something coming from nothing for no reason, not the big bang theory?

Evolution happened of course but clearly there was certainly some kind of progression over a global scale of increasing organisation and complexity and organisation overtime and we're the final most complex product. If the universe as a whole was directional toward life then life can be directional towards sentience and civilization.

Doesn't it save time for me not to have to point out to you that the majority of the universe isn't structured for life, that the parts of it that are aren't ideal for it, and that your meaningless

The universe was structured in such as way to develop structures (solar systems/planets) suitable for life. The whole thing had to be engineered a certain way for this to be accomplished. There wasn't a margin for error for any of this. You're not going to form something like this by blind chance coincidence. Look at this son of a bitch right here.



You're seeing this? That's complex structure.

Here look.



That's a complex sequence of finely crafted development overtime. The product being ourselves.

I find this business somewhat interesting as well. I think life much as the universe in general must be set on some kind of intricate mathematical framework and there is some general kind of direction or flow behind it. This way we can still be creations of God even if the process is a little less direct than that described in Genesis.

anthropomorphization of the formation of the universe is ineffective as an argument because it's only even an issue if we take a designer as read; it's defining a problem into existence, and without a designer there is also no design, and thus the chances of something happening the way it did are moot.

I would strongly suggest that there is some kind of design and we can actually see it with our own eyes. This isn't really one of those "if you wish hard enough it just might be true" kind of things here.

Even Charles Darwin believed life was made a Creator.

"There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Natural selection is a real enough but all it does is sieve through the genetic material presented to it. It has no capacity to introduce new genetic material. And neither really does random point mutation which essentially deletes genetic information from the organism. Though of course Darwin himself knew nothing about DNA or mutation. Chances are he would have disagreed with what his theory has been developed into given the evidence we have.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/w...z2cyU9KpJX
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Isn't it nice that I don't have to waste my time posting this evidence for the big bang? And isn't it equally nice that I don't have to remind you that what I just posted is real evidence and not just a series of assertions, like your position has been so far?

All the evidence you want to use is evidence I'd use to claim that there is a design/purpose therefore a designer and purpose giver. This will be God.

Again, it's lucky you didn't! Because you would just look like a fucking dumbass if you did, given that this isn't an atheist position, and I'd have to remind you that the burden of proof lies on you, if you want to claim that there's something more than that.

Do you believe your consciousness is a byproduct of chemical reactions in your brain or don't you? If you don't believe in God or the supernatural (insert whatever you want to call it) then you can't be anything else. Everything you think, feel and do would be a result of chemical reactions reacting to environmental stimulus like some kind of a machine. If you don't believe this then you're not really an atheist/naturalist as you would believe there is something more to it. We can call it God.

Because they're wrong. The existence of prayer doesn't mean prayer works, or do you say the same of not allowing black cats to cross your path?

It doesn't seem to me like it would have any kind of survival advantage at all. Given the amount of time and energy humanity has invested into this business. Seems to me like there would be something interesting laying behind it.

No, because prayer is a sociological phenomenon. If you wanted the evolutionary purpose behind fostering the kinds of beliefs that would lead to religion I could make a case, though.

The phenomenon was right there at the very beginning as far as we can tell. It certainly predates civilization by tens of thousands of years and covering the entire planet. So there's going have to be some other explanation for it beyond sociology. This won't be a purely culture thing even if culture does appear to be a factor in shaping someones religious beliefs and practice. Certainly something that has been around for this length of time must have something going for it.