Prayer

[POI]

For Debate: Is prayer just talking to yourself? If not, why not? Sure, prayer may make one feel satisfied/other, but there is likely no agency, on the other side, facilitating such desired response(s).

**********************************

People pray to many differing god(s) and/or other. Statistically speaking, many god(s) and/or other aren't answering, as many of these god(s) and/or other likely do not even exist. Hence, at least in part, many are merely talking to themselves in prayer. If many of the desired result(s) can happen in prayer, without any agency actually responding, because such agency does not exist, then it's quite plausible this is the case for all prayer.

[1213]

1) Is proving a negative possible?

I think it is possible, if the matter is really not true.

2) How might anyone prove that an invisible agency ISN'T actually there?

By demonstrating that it can't be there.

3) What evidence would specifically satisfy you?

Probably reasonable evidence.

4) How did you effectively rule out all the claimed invisible agencies, for which you do not believe in?

I have not ruled out anything that I can't prove to be non-existent.

[1213]

...why do you think a god is listening? ...

I believe God is listening, because of the Bible and also because things seems to go as if God is listening.

The world we know of works without a god ....

I don't believe that, sorry. If world works without God, how for example life begins from non-organic material spontaneously? Why don't we see that happening in nature?

[TRANSPONDER]

...why do you think a god is listening? ...

I believe God is listening, because of the Bible and also because things seems to go as if God is listening.

The world we know of works without a god ....

I don't believe that, sorry. If world works without God, how for example life begins from non-organic material spontaneously? Why don't we see that happening in nature?

Well, damn. me if I didn't just do a post about Faithbased denial. The Bible validates nothing at all, because its' reliability is itself under question (the claim is no evidence for the claim) and things do not go as if any god (name your own) is listening let alone intervening. That is simply doubling down and protesting that whatever happens is part of God's plan. Faith, gullibility and denial is not a virtue. It is the perfect system for concealing lies, and willingness to be deceived.

And attempts at an excuse for dismissing the evidence like the miserable resort to 'who made everything, then?' trump card gets you nowhere. Yet the 'atheist - stumper' is clung to as though it proved everything. It proves nothing.

The world we know of works without a god being needed (materialist default) and even if (as you and your average Theist apologists knows only too well) a hypothetical mechanism for abiogenesis is rejected as valid, the origin of life is Unknown. It is not a creator god, nor would it say which one it was, even if one accepted the apologetic.

The dismal old 'create life in a laboratory' last resort does not validate Biblegod, Jesus or Christianity any more than it undermines the workin g of physics, chemistry and biology without a god being needed.

You have no case but denial and flawed and irrelevant arguments. And (like in my precious post in another thread) the denial of evidence and reason by the believer, and insisting on what they believe or the denial of what they don't want to accept is not a winner for them, but no more than faithbased denial, which is what most (or all) theist apologetics comes down to in the end.

[POI]

1) Is proving a negative possible?

I think it is possible, if the matter is really not true.

2) How might anyone prove that an invisible agency ISN'T actually there?

By demonstrating that it can't be there.

3) What evidence would specifically satisfy you?

Probably reasonable evidence.

4) How did you effectively rule out all the claimed invisible agencies, for which you do not believe in?

I have not ruled out anything that I can't prove to be non-existent.

Most of your response is not really an answer. All I got from it is that you have not ruled out ANY claim made about invisible agencies which have been presented to you. In an attempt to keep this exchange productive, I will try to push this forward.

How exactly might I go about proving to you that when you pray, you are speaking to yourself alone?

[1213]

...How exactly might I go about proving to you that when you pray, you are speaking to yourself alone?

For example by proving that the Bible God is not real.

[1213]

The Bible validates nothing at all, because its' reliability is itself under question (the claim is no evidence for the claim) ...

And yet you expect others to believe your claims with faith.

The world we know of works without a god being needed...

Sorry, I have not enough faith in you and your unsupported claims.

[TRANSPONDER]

The Bible validates nothing at all, because its' reliability is itself under question (the claim is no evidence for the claim) ...

And yet you expect others to believe your claims with faith.

The world we know of works without a god being needed...

Sorry, I have not enough faith in you and your unsupported claims.

Neither of us expect others to accept our claims with Faith; we both provide evidence, don't we? Just that you end up by denying my evidence on the basis of Faith. You even end up by denying what the Bible actually says, never mind sets out with a bit of work, like the resurrection contradictions.

We know that you reject slavery in the Bible, even when it plainly says so (but nearly all Christians do) and you denied that daylight before the sun was actually daylight, though you doubled down and swore the sun actually was made later than earth (but not that the earth was flat,oh no) and the Cosmic light switched on and off,imitating day and night. You overstepped the unwritten rule - don't science so much you become a laughing - stock.

You fought the failure of the prophecy of Tyre, the evidence of speciation and the contradictions of the resurrection. Though you got beat with the evidence on all of them.

You have denied as much evidence as any reasonable person would require and on denialist Faith. So don't you go accusing Bible critics and doubters and those who go on the best evidence case of having too much faith.

[POI]

...How exactly might I go about proving to you that when you pray, you are speaking to yourself alone?

For example by proving that the Bible God is not real.

I do not follow your response? Can you please elaborate?

[1213]

...How exactly might I go about proving to you that when you pray, you are speaking to yourself alone?

For example by proving that the Bible God is not real.

I do not follow your response? Can you please elaborate?

If you want to prove that the prayer is not going to God, one way to do it is to prove that God is not real.

[1213]

...we both provide evidence, don't we? Just that you end up by denying my evidence on the basis of Faith...

I don't deny any evidence, only your interpretation of it, at least in some cases.

You even end up by denying what the Bible actually says,

I have not denied anything what the Bible says.

We know that you reject slavery in the Bible, even when it plainly says so (but nearly all Christians do) and you denied that daylight before the sun was actually daylight, though you doubled down and swore the sun actually was made later than earth (but not that the earth was flat,oh no) and the Cosmic light switched on and off,imitating day and night.

Do you understand that everyone can see that you are not speaking the truth. It makes your position look really bad, when all you have is lies.

You fought the failure of the prophecy of Tyre

And I showed that there is no good reason to think the prophesy failed.