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.

[TRANSPONDER]

...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.

As I recall, you denied that slavery was actual slavery. Agreed, you did apparently say that the sun was indeed made later than earth (not that such helps your credibility much) and God made a cosmic imitation of daylight though you ignored what the Bible said, day and dark, morning and evening.
,
You did indeed deny what the Bible says when put together, Matthew says the women ran into Jesus after finding the tomb empty, and Luke tacitly says they did not. Give or take your posting of the combined account with the contradiction taken out (so you knoew what they were) and then denying you'd done it (1) never mind denying there were any, and as to the prophecy of Tyre you tried the old apologetics and I debunked every one of them, and you left it to the crickets after that. I don't know how you have the gall to claim you showed good reason that the prophecy did not fail (I recall you pulled the old trick of arguing that the rebuilt city was not the same, but I debunked that - the Island city was back and running and the mainland rebuilt was still 'Tyre'. It was rebuilt, sound of harps and all.

Sure, you deny my 'interpretation' as you call it, but the evidence refutes you every time, and you resort to denial even in the face of slam dunk evidence, notably with whale speciation.

As to your accusations of lying, I need hardly comment. Except to say that your method is denial and evasion.

So prayer, it does not work, and demonstrably does not, and the Christian apologists know it does not as they excuse themselves from even trying it. They know it doesn't work. And to say God makes no guarantees to grant prayer contradicts the guarantee made in the gospels, even given that God won't grant a prayer to have California rooted up and dropped in the pacific, though the religious Right would be at a loss to explain why not.

(1) you pulled the trick of demanding I find those old posts, but I said I'd be glad to do it again and see whether you could deny the contradictions.

[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?

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.

How might I go about proving that your claimed God, or any claimed god(s) for that matter, are not real?

[TRANSPONDER]

Or another approach, whatever arguments are presented for Biblegod, would they not equally apply to any other god and religion? Thus it has to come down through the claims for a religion being more credible than the others, and means validating the Holy book and we get the same thing.
Why is one Holy Book more valid than the others?

Now, I know that the Bible looks on the face of it to be a reliable record, but it really isn't, Or at least, that (not disprove a god or that god is real...but only if it's Ours) is the debate, and the only debate that matters.

[1213]

...How might I go about proving that your claimed God, or any claimed god(s) for that matter, are not real?

That is like asking, how could I prove earth does not exist.

[TRANSPONDER]

...How might I go about proving that your claimed God, or any claimed god(s) for that matter, are not real?

That is like asking, how could I prove earth does not exist.

Exactly The question is rather the burden of proving a claim does exist. The evidence is that the earth does exist. There is a limit to which our senses and experience can be claimed to be deceptive.

In the case of God, there is a limit to which our imagination and faithbased preferences can be credited.

[POI]

...How might I go about proving that your claimed God, or any claimed god(s) for that matter, are not real?

That is like asking, how could I prove earth does not exist.

okey dokey smokey

[Mae von H]

We are already off to a bad start. We can prove humans exist. We can prove husbands exist. We know the emotion of love exists.

That’s not what I said. I said I can’t prove to you MY HUSBAND exists. And can you prove to me here that love exists. You only have words.

You can prove to him your husband exists, by sending both IDs, marriage certificate and a signed affidavit that the marriage was not divorced yet!

You don’t even know my name. I can send anyone’s certificates. If you think seeing someone’s papers means you know the truth, then you’re very gullible and wide open to being scammed.

It is then not unreasonable to surmise you are married and have a husband. It is also not unreasonable to surmise your husband loves you.

Wide open to being scammed.

This is already leaps and bounds ahead of the claim you are praying to a 'God'. Do we know your God exists?

“We?” No. Me? yes.

How might we prove this?

When I tell you that God has moved matters and changed them according to my prayer request, then it’s not unreasonable to surmise He exists. What’s the difference?

Analogy: " If Mae von H tells people that she knows Bigfoot exists and she heard a noise behind the bushes and thinks she knows it was Bigfoot, thenit is not unreasonable to surmise that Bigfoot exists! "

That you do not see the difference shows a gap no man can cross.

Do you see what rubbish you talk?

Im sure it sounds like that to you.

In both cases all my evidence, although rock solid for me because I live(d) it, is anecdotal for you. How shall we solve this? You’d have to believe my accounts and that’s a tall ask since acknowledging this point being true leads to bigger challenges for you.

If you believe God answers prayer, please have him tell you what my middle name is, and then tell me. This would be unexplainable. And maybe lead me to believe you are not merely talking to yourself.

You aren’t testing me. You’re testing Him. I have to ask if He’s willing. We have a relationship whereby I am the servant. He’s not my servant doing my bidding.

Thats unfortunate! Can you enslave him?
Into an empty bottle perhaps?
Aladdin enslaved Djafar into an empty bottle, you have to know.

Who is talking rubbish?

[TRANSPONDER]

Well you ain't making much sense (nice to see you back by the way ). It is the usual evasion on prayer. It is neither testing you or a god, but the claim that prayer works. That you know it actually doesn't is proven by the third inevitable thing

Death, taxes and Believers in Prayer finding excuses not to show that it works any better than coincidence would account for.

[POI]

In an effort to push this topic along, I'm going out on a limb and proclaiming the following:

The act of prayer is merely speaking to oneself.

Why? 1) We know the self exists. 2) We know the act of prayer exists, which involves talking to some perceived invisible agency. 3) We do not know there actually exists some invisible agency. Further, 4) we have no means to believe in any actual asserted invisible agency, which has not yet even been demonstrated BTW, who actually listens and/or answers.

Okay Christians, it's up to you to counter points 3) and 4), assuming you logically do not contest points 1) and 2).

[POI]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #197]

Dear Mae,

Thank you for returning, but you completely skipped my response to you, via post 176.