Search for Causes

[The Grand Nudger]

Obviously not, since you told it like "talking" when you knew it wasn't that.

Any other revisions that you'd like to make?

[Lek]

Obviously not, since you told it like "talking" when you knew it wasn't that.

Any other revisions that you'd like to make?

I don't think I ever said that God "talks" to me, but if I did I wouldn't necessarily mean that I hear his literal words in English.  I think you really know that already.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC I know that, but that doesn't change the fact that your description of listening to god is necessarrily and intentionally inaccurate. You don't do that, it isn't a part of your "process" - because god does not speak to you. Not in english, not in any language at all.

Instead, you are "enlightened", presumably by a god, but with no discernible form of communication between you and god.

Perhaps you could give us an example of the types of things god enlightens you with? Some product of this process. It's likely that people will have a better understanding of what you're trying to say, you'll seem like less of a loon, and you'll probably find that others, who do not believe in gods, have a similar experience.

as above, I strongly doubt that you study in any sense except a novel one, or that you consider alternatives in any sense other than a novel one. God may not speak to you in english, but you're certainly capable of speaking english here, to us.

[Deesse23]

If your method is *prayer* then its utterly ineffective. Think of all those people who pray to the *wrong* (aka not yours) god. If your god exists, THEIR prayer is useless. If THEIR god exists, your prayer is useless. Ergo: Prayer as a method is useless to find out who is praying to the *right* god.
How can prayer be an effective method to figure out truth anyway? It literally is wishful thinking, aka "please, god, make my wishes come true.....if you like". Prayer is not about finding out what is true, but about maing your wishes come true, and you have yourself admitted to it.

Think about it........but you wont.

This is not the case.

What is not the case?
I asked how you know that prayer is a reliable method to figure out which god exists.
If prayer is your method to find out if god is true, and if prayer is everyone elses method too, then one of you must be wrong, since many people are praying to mutually exclusive gods.

 There is only one God who, or which, is indescribable in human concepts.

How do you know its your god that listens to your prayers? Other people pray to other gods, which can not be your god.

 People of various faiths have come to know that God exists through his enlightening and from there different concepts have arisen in various cultures. Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Native Americans, etc all worship the same God...

No they dont.

Christians have a trinity. Muslims one one god. Hindus have many gods.
Christians´god gives you only one life (and an afterlife). In Hinduism you have reincarantion.
You all do NOT believe in the same god and assorted aupernatural concepts.
Please stop pretending so. Its intellectually lazy and dishonest.

So when a hindu prays and when you pray. At least one of you prays to a god that does not exist. Ergo: Prayer is no reliable method to find the truth.

Additional question: Are you applying prayer to ANYthing else in your life in order to find the truth about something?

Does he speak to you?

I'd say he enlightens me in numerous ways.

You said:

"My method is prayer and listening to God along with studying and considering alternatives."

Is he talking to you? What do you mean by "listening" otherwise.

[LadyForCamus]

So, you’re starting with your conclusion then. You don’t see the obvious problem with that reasoning?

You left out the remainder of the sentence.  It reads:

"My method is prayer and listening to God along with studying and considering alternatives."

Your reasoning is still circular, Lek. Can’t you see that you’re setting your self up for confirmation bias? If you start with praying to god for a sign, then you’re going to interpret everything that happens after the fact as exactly that, rather than through an objective lens. And, then you’ll conclude god was the most likely cause. That is erroneous reasoning.

[Lek]

You left out the remainder of the sentence.  It reads:

"My method is prayer and listening to God along with studying and considering alternatives."

Your reasoning is still circular, Lek. Can’t you see that you’re setting your self up for confirmation bias? If you start with praying to god for a sign, then you’re going to interpret everything that happens after the fact as exactly that, rather than through an objective lens. And, then you’ll conclude god was the most likely cause. That is erroneous reasoning.

When you try to determine the cause for anything is one of your considerations that it was caused by supernatural means?

[no one]

There is no such thing as the supernatural. Anything that is naturally possible, is possible.

[Lek]

Is he talking to you? What do you mean by "listening" otherwise.

Staying open to his revelation.

[no one]

Have you ever seen god's tallywhacker?

[Lek]

There is no such thing as the supernatural. Anything that is naturally possible, is possible.

That's circular reasoning. You begin with the premise that there is no supernatural.