When you prayed did it ever work?

[Cyberman]

Yeah, you're right. I suppose I was expecting miracles or something.

[Edwardo Piet]

Please show me where I said that sentence you keep quoting.

From post #61 on this thread:

Prayer is talking with God. It's the live relationship where you discover his will. You know his will as you test it against your knowledge of him. If it is inconsistent with accepted (by you) knowledge then it's not him.

My bolding. That's what confused me. The idea that you know his will as you test it against him. I realized later that I was misinterpreting, as I said, because when you said 'it' you must have meant the word 'Prayer' from two sentences before - because that way it makes sense. I just didn't notice what you meant at first because your 'it' was in the same sentence as 'his will' so it seemed like they were connected. It would of course make no sense to say that "you know his will as you test it against him".

I don't see the book as evidence in the way I think you demand.

I'm not demanding anything, I've already said that.

It's information to take or leave, purposefully. It never seeks to prove God. It assumes God, because that was the cultural norm of its authors. We're it written now, the distinction would be made, because a modern audience wouldn't assume God. The book reflects the direct experience of believers. It doesn't force something foreign onto us.

Are you saying that you justify it pragmatically? It's useful for you to believe in God? You follow a book that assumes God, not a book that gives evidence for God?

Or if you're saying it's not proof, but it is evidence, just a different kind of evidence, then how is assuming God evidence?

[fr0d0]

From post #61 on this thread:

Prayer is talking with God. It's the live relationship where you discover his will. You know his will as you test it against your knowledge of him. If it is inconsistent with accepted (by you) knowledge then it's not him.

My bolding. That's what confused me. The idea that you know his will as you test it against him.

I object to you removing the words "knowledge of". That completely changes it.

No I didn't mean prayer. I meant you can test what you think might be his will against accepted wisdom on what constitutes his will. That's pretty much how xtianity works. Warm fuzzy feeling is meaningless without backup. It's the way the rabbinical tradition has functioned for many centuries.

---

Are you saying that you justify it pragmatically? It's useful for you to believe in God? You follow a book that assumes God, not a book that gives evidence for God?

Or if you're saying it's not proof, but it is evidence, just a different kind of evidence, then how is assuming God evidence?

I don't know where you're at with this.

Assuming God isn't a certain kind of evidence. But you don't mind that. Assuming God we can conclude an answer: given God. That all answers succeed, compels students to trust.

[Edwardo Piet]

I object to you removing the words "knowledge of". That completely changes it.

I still meant the same thing. What did you think I meant by 'knowing God's will by testing it against him'?

No I didn't mean prayer. I meant you can test what you think might be his will against accepted wisdom on what constitutes his will.

So do you mean like... if you find what you think might be an example of his will, you try to see if that matches accepted biblical wisdom of God's will?

In that case I guess this is going nowhere if we're going to simply give credit to "accepted wisdom" without questioning whether that "accepted wisdom" is based on valid evidence.

That's pretty much how xtianity works. Warm fuzzy feeling is meaningless without backup.

And how does this particular case of "accepted wisdom" map on to the reality of what actually exists?

Assuming God isn't a certain kind of evidence. But you don't mind that. Assuming God we can conclude an answer: given God. That all answers succeed, compels students to trust.

So you use God as an explanation and don't try to explain God?

[fr0d0]

I object to you removing the words "knowledge of". That completely changes it.

I still meant the same thing. What did you think I meant by 'knowing God's will by testing it against him'?

That statement is circular. My statement is not.

---

So you use God as an explanation and don't try to explain God?

Crux here. We don't need to explain God. To do so would demand impossible evidence. No one starts on that fools errand.

---

No I didn't mean prayer. I meant you can test what you think might be his will against accepted wisdom on what constitutes his will.

So do you mean like... if you find what you think might be an example of his will, you try to see if that matches accepted biblical wisdom of God's will?

In that case I guess this is going nowhere if we're going to simply give credit to "accepted wisdom" without questioning whether that "accepted wisdom" is based on valid evidence.

You would try to see if you didn't already know. Everyone has to question it lol. That's what believing entails. Choosing using knowledge. If you didn't have the information, and didn't assess that information so that you could trust it to be true, then you wouldn't have faith in the xtian sense.

[Minimalist]

We don't need to explain God.

Actually, Frods, you do. Without that, it is merely a figment of your imagination and I am under no obligation to take your word for it.

For all I know, you could be a complete lunatic!

[Edwardo Piet]

That statement is circular. My statement is not.

How is the meaning of the statement any different? How can it be any more or less circular? When I say "you know God's will as you test it against him" what else does that mean other than "you know God's will as you test it against your knowledge of him"?

Crux here. We don't need to explain God. To do so would demand impossible evidence. No one starts on that fools errand.

So since you consider the evidence impossible rather than simply not believing you instead decide to go ahead and believe anyway? You don't see a problem with believing in something that there cannot be any evidence to support it?

You would try to see if you didn't already know. Everyone has to question it lol. That's what believing entails. Choosing using knowledge.[...]

What knowledge?

[Ryantology]

Crux here. We don't need to explain God. To do so would demand impossible evidence. No one starts on that fools errand.

If proving your claim requires impossible evidence, it is all but certain that your claim, itself, is impossible.

[fr0d0]

Crux here. We don't need to explain God. To do so would demand impossible evidence. No one starts on that fools errand.

If proving your claim requires impossible evidence, it is all but certain that your claim, itself, is impossible.

If I ever made the claim, which I'm not stupid enough to do.

[Edwardo Piet]

You believe it though, so apparently it makes sense to yourself. Even without sufficent evidence.