How sure are you that those are indeed "miracles"? Can it not be something that can not be explained at that time but will be explained some day in the future? Many ancient tribes thought rain was controlled by God too, but we now know better.

Most of the studies done to test the efficacy of prayers, the prayers were not done for personal gain. Most were double blind studies where the person who prayed did not even know the person being prayed for prior to the experiment.

I can certainly understand those who pray for spiritual purposes or maybe as a method of self reflection. Nothing wrong with that. But would you not agree that the "many reasons" people pray for somehow or other MOSTLY involve personal gain, or the gain of someone they know/like? Things like "May God grant me the strength...", may subconsciously be beneficial for the person's confidence but isn't the reference to God in this case still unjustified? It still is a delusion. Not to mention it still is for personal gain. Why not say "May my tasty spaghetti grant me the strength...?"

To me the premise of prayer lies in that God is omnipotent and hence can help see them through certain periods or events of a person's life. But so far it seems pretty clear that God is either non-omnipotent or he does not like exercising his power on Earth. Or heaven is keeping him very busy. For whatever reason you pray, to me, it is blind faith unless you would continue to pray even if you believe God is non-omnipotent. Or if you are praying to go to heaven when you die (we don't have evidence on whether God can or can't do this).

No, it is not as vague as the existence of God. Many claims such as yours have been debunked over the years by new scientific discovery, and the trend does not seem to be reducing. Personally, I think the only mysteries that will not be one day explained will be the ones that do not garner enough attention by the world-at-large to study it.

Furthermore, you seem confused about the difference between probability and possibility. Something that is improbable does not mean it is impossible. It is impossible for a ball to be thrown upwards from Earth without any technological aid to continue upward forever and ever. But it is not impossible to throw a basketball into a hoop blindfolded without prior knowledge of where the hoop is. It is just improbable. If indeed the person sinks the shot, it does not prove God had a hand in it. So the guy who received the 50bucks after praying for it may just be a coincidence, it does not mean that God had intervened. Such an event is improbable but not impossible.

The only way for such an event to be of significance is if it defies statistics derived from research. I'll try to explain with an example. Let's say the 5 year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is 10%. That does not mean that if a patient survived beyond 5 years it would be a miracle, or that God intervened. However, if 10 out of 10 patients in a randomised study, with no extra factors that could have influenced the survival rate, survived beyond 5 years, except they all used prayers, then you can claim prayers worked. No evidence for that thus far. Plenty of the opposite.

The story if Jesus is a great story. Nobody today knows if it is a real story, but nonetheless, his story is inspirational. Nowhere did I say drawing inspiration from his story is delusional. Is it delusional to draw inspiration from the brave fight of Harry Potter against the dementors? I think not.
But the problem here is, these people are drawing inspiration from a story, a deed, not an imaginary ENTITY. There are no general consensus as to the story of God. Even if there is, it is that he is not human, he is above humans. So how does one draw inspiration from God? I may be ignorant on this, so if I am please enlighten me. But is there a story about God himself, not Jesus, that is possible for humans to draw human parallels from?

From what I understand, people (not all) pray to God only because they think he is omnipotent. That is delusional. This is entirely different from drawing inspiration from the story of Jesus, something I am not against.

To the contrary, I have not closed my book. Believers such as yourself seem to think that just because non-believers do not agree with you then we must be close-minded. In fact, I am searching for a reason to believe. But no one seems to be able to provide me with that reason. Of course, I have to argue against every reason provided, until I am unable to, just to make sure that the reason can hold up to it. So far, every attempt has failed. If you are interested, I think those who based their reasoning on science are actually the ones who are open-minded. Since those people are the ones who reason based on the latest available evidence, rather than 2000 year old dogmas.

---

Added on January 21, 2010, 7:06 pmThen you convert to Scientology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu


This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Jan 21 2010, 07:06 PM

The probability we speak of here is not random probability. It illustrates cause and event. it shows that an event follows a cause. That is what I meant by God having no power over what happens. There is no such thing as "believing" in probability.



Unfortunately, the amount of contributors do not make his existence likely. Ever heard of mass hysteria? Plus, up till today's knowledge in science, virgin birth is not improbable, it is impossible, for humans.

In fact, I am fairly certain the writers knew that too and capitalised on it to make his birth seem like a miracle so as to increase its appeal. People needed a reason to believe he is the son of God.

It depends on what you mean by "prove". Can one prove green is green?
By that context EVERYTHING is up for personal interpretation and conclusion. But not in science.

I was not searching for a scientific prove for the existence of God. I am looking for a reason. Reason is not the same as proves. You may have been confused there. I stated I have not found a reason not because I have not found proves. It just means that all the reasons I have came across so far seemed to be unnecessary. Why attribute my $30 to God? Why not my own hard work. Why attribute the collapse of the building to God when a review of the structure of the building would be more useful?

Your point on faith is valid. But why does it have to be a supernatural entity? Luck is not based on the supernatural. My faith in my badminton doubles partner is not either. Hope is a very powerful thing. But why does it have to be based on an all powerful supernatural entity? If the major religions of the world do not claim God to be omnipotent, I would likely have embraced its notion.

Having the ability to create something does not mean you will have absolute power over it. You can create a nuclear bomb and still be blasted away by it. I am no discounting the fact that God does not have power over it, but if he does, he either does not exercise that power or he does not do it on Earth. This conclusion is drawn from there being no evidence whatsoever of it ever occurring.



Can I please have your source on those "many who saw him in flesh and experienced his teachings?" I admit I do not have much knowledge on the subject so some readings on these who were lucky enough to have met Jesus would be nice. Thanks.
Of course, this still does not make them immune from the effects of mass hysteria.

And I wasn't debunking his existence. I was debunking the concept of Virgin Birth. Then again, if the Virgin Birth is fictional, who knows what else is made up? After all, there are no evidence for any of it. So it really does not matter if there is more to it or not.



The general consensus exist to aid in our communication. If we all start going against it for no good reason, the whole of human communications will break down.
And the general consensus is something does not exist until it is proven to exist. Not, it exists until its existence is disproved.

Where does animism come into this? I'm not quite sure I even believe there is such a thing as "soul".

Putting faith in something that is not absolute has a lot to do with positive thinking. I'm sure you have heard of the positive thinking cliche especially by motivational speakers. Hoping for a positive outcome gears one towards thinking about the positive outcome. And that can have an immense influence on one's self confidence. The probability of success and failure does not change no matter how much one hopes. But thinking about the good and not the bad, will improve one's performance which would indirectly skew the probabilities.

Using Kim Jong-Il as an example has clearly demonstrated your biased views. If Jesus was proven to exist and to his own admission he is no Son of God, will you still follow his teachings and draw inspiration from his story? And perhaps idolise him? Is there anything wrong with idolising a human and perhaps to your own terms, call him God? Is it wrong to have faith in the guidance of your idol (not literally, but through their teachings)?

I think the question should be, why believe in something you think is omnipotent, but know nothing of? How will that guide you? How will that make you a better person in this here and now?

Have you read the Time Traveler's Wife?

So I take it you don't believe in Free Will, then?

Studies suggest that God does not grant ANY prayers at all.

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS00028...006496/abstract

That's one of them. There are many more studies. If you do a literature search many more will turn up.