Argument for atheism from necessary evil

[fr0d0]

@ Ace: QED

Christianity claims that God answers prayers and performs miracles. These things are empirically verifiable. No evidence has been found that prayer is effective, and no miracle has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be supernatural.

To know what the answer to any prayer should be would require you to know what God is thinking. As presumably you nor anyone yet who has tried to test the efficacy of prayer has enough knowledge to decide if the prayer has been answered or not, you cannot have proven anything either way. Am I right?

[Minimalist]

As presumably you nor anyone yet who has tried to test the efficacy of prayer has enough knowledge to decide if the prayer has been answered or not, you cannot have proven anything either way.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[fr0d0]

The site proves my point Min.

[Captain Scarlet]

The site proves my point Min.

So I think the point is that if prayer does not lead to empirically positive results it counts as evidence against the existence of a christian god. No evidence is conclusive becuase you could counter as you have done or he may not really care or be intrinscily evil or may not be thinking (I don't believe he can think if he is in a timeless non-place, I know you think differently). However along with other evidence if we apply Occams Razer we should conclude that god does not exist.

[Entropist]

More goalpost moving.

[Minimalist]

That site shows your god to be either uncaring or inept. In either case, it does not help your argument.

[fr0d0]

So I think the point is that if prayer does not lead to empirically positive results it counts as evidence against the existence of a christian god. No evidence is conclusive becuase you could counter as you have done or he may not really care or be intrinscily evil or may not be thinking (I don't believe he can think if he is in a timeless non-place, I know you think differently). However along with other evidence if we apply Occams Razer we should conclude that god does not exist.

I don't counter that he doesn't care I counter that we are not knowledgeable to judge the fairness of the action. We can't say whether his action is caring or not because we don't have access to all the information. We assume that no action is injust but on what grounds? We cannot know and therefore cannot judge. In this case God clearly has no interest in restoring missing limbs. Is that caring or uncaring?... we cannot judge.

[Captain Scarlet]

So I think the point is that if prayer does not lead to empirically positive results it counts as evidence against the existence of a christian god. No evidence is conclusive becuase you could counter as you have done or he may not really care or be intrinscily evil or may not be thinking (I don't believe he can think if he is in a timeless non-place, I know you think differently). However along with other evidence if we apply Occams Razer we should conclude that god does not exist.

I don't counter that he doesn't care I counter that we are not knowledgeable to judge the fairness of the action. We can't say whether his action is caring or not because we don't have access to all the information. We assume that no action is injust but on what grounds? We cannot know and therefore cannot judge. In this case God clearly has no interest in restoring missing limbs. Is that caring or uncaring?... we cannot judge.

I did not say that you said that "god did not care" (I said or he may not care).

Anyway these are not problems for atheism but problems for theism, we merely point out the inconsistencies. You are effectively saying that we cannot judge a god/s, but of course we can and theism has set this up. Your views have more in common with mysticism than of theism. Theism clearly states that if we follow the rules we will be saved, if we make appeals we will be looked favourabley upon (if we are believers). We can test this, not by trying to understand whats going on in an incorporeal mind, but by purely testing the output (the result). As time and again we see no end result of prayer or worship or afterlife or souls or whatever, it is safe to conclude that the thesim is not true and the god imagined by that theism is false. Why people claim god has performed miracles saving them from internal illnesses, but never heals just as deserving amputees is a rather sarcastic but poigniant example, there are of course many, many other examples.

[The Omnissiunt One]

As CS says, non-answered prayers don't conclusively disprove God, but they are much more likely under atheism than theism. Other people's minds are largely incomprehensible to us, and that of God would be especially so, if he existed. You could say that Hitler believed what he was doing was for the Jews' good, ultimately, even if he was mistaken, and wished to deceive the public about his intentions. It is compatible with the evidence. That doesn't mean that this is a likely explanation.

[fr0d0]

Anyway these are not problems for atheism but problems for theism

Which therefore have to be considered within the logical framework of that stance

we merely point out the inconsistencies. You are effectively saying that we cannot judge a god/s, but of course we can and theism has set this up.

You're mixing up the knowledge of what God is (truth, simplicity, love) and the knowledge of everything as possessed by God.

if we make appeals we will be looked favourabley upon (if we are believers). We can test this, not by trying to understand whats going on in an incorporeal mind, but by purely testing the output (the result). As time and again we see no end result of prayer or worship or afterlife or souls or whatever, it is safe to conclude that the thesim is not true and the god imagined by that theism is false.

"We" (as in non believers) will not see evidence this is true. Because you look at the answers without allowing for God. That doesn't equate to valid reasoning to disbelieve, just coloured reasoning that would persuade you of one perspective. I insist on the right for your right to be free to make that choice.

We still don't know if the output (the result) is fair or unfair, so how can we then say if it's fair or unfair?

Why people claim god has performed miracles saving them from internal illnesses, but never heals just as deserving amputees is a rather sarcastic but poigniant example, there are of course many, many other examples.

You're making large assumptions there. First one way and then another.

To assert that the prayer of any believer has to be answered positively by God is a gross misunderstanding and logically bankrupt.