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.

[The Nice Centurion]

So, you just talked to yourself and expected something?

All prayer is speaking to oneself.

If it is pointed to oneself. If it is not pointed to oneself, it is not speaking to oneself, even if there is no one listening. For example often I get the feeling here that no one listens. It doesn't mean that I am just talking to myself.

Your response makes no sense. We both know there exists people here who read the responses. Whether they decide to respond or not, is another matter. However, when you are praying, regardless of your intent, you are only talking to yourself alone. Meaning, there is no one on the other end listening, because they do not exist.

1213 gets the feeling he is talking to himself here and is obviously wrong.
That strenghtens the implication that when 1213 talks to his god and gets the feeling he is heard, he could also be absolutely wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

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

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.

Love doesn't exist any more than your husband exists. Of course, the person you call 'husband' exist, but the concept of 'husband' is a human construct. Isn't it? In the same way Love does not exist. Human instincts and emotion exist and we have the ones that we think positive and the ones we think negative. We build up a database of preferences and (by no means universal) moral database gets created and 'Love' can cover
anything from Love of cheese to love of war.

Argument from 'Love' like argument from Morality neither proves nor disproves anything but another human convention (based on instincts, if anything) like art music or the rukes of chess. You play by the rules or the games becomes nothing.

As to the prayer, test, what is being tested is the claim. Whether it's you or 'Him' is irrelevant, unless you are trying to play the 'How dare you demand that God prove Himself?" excuse for not being able to demonstrate the evidence than any science -claim would be expected to provide. You anecdotal claim that God has moved this or that and it is not only all the evidence that you require but should be all the evidence we should require, I can only cite 'open mind' vid "It is not we who should ask for less evidence, but you should ask for more".

I have related anecdotes before now that what looked like answered prayer happened to be, but I do not pray. Thus what Seems like answered prayer is just what turns out well. As we know, two teams pray to win, but only one side gets the prayer answered with a win. Just as if it was down to ability, or just luck, and nothing to do with a god.

After all Pakistan beating Ireland at cricket doesn't prove Islam true and Catholicism false.

cue: "more than that!" But let's see.

[The Nice Centurion]

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!

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

Do you see what rubbish you talk?

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.

[1213]

Your response makes no sense. We both know there exists people here who read the responses. Whether they decide to respond or not, is another matter. However, when you are praying, regardless of your intent, you are only talking to yourself alone. Meaning, there is no one on the other end listening, because they do not exist.

Even if no one would be listening, if the speech is directed to someone else than oneself, it is not talking to oneself.

But, how would you prove God is not listening or hearing?

[TRANSPONDER]

Your response makes no sense. We both know there exists people here who read the responses. Whether they decide to respond or not, is another matter. However, when you are praying, regardless of your intent, you are only talking to yourself alone. Meaning, there is no one on the other end listening, because they do not exist.

Even if no one would be listening, if the speech is directed to someone else than oneself, it is not talking to oneself.

But, how would you prove God is not listening or hearing?

As usual the burden of proof is not so reversed. It is for the faith - claimant to prove that the claim is true, not for the doubter to show it is false. Though in fact we doubters can (If God is talking to one, why isn't he talking to all who pray to their god?). But talking to ones'self is where one talks to God or Jesus and claims to get answers, specifically in their own head. It is invalid enough to claim that God answers in actions in their life. And if they get no answer, then carrying on Praying (the comedy film that hammer never dared make) is not talking to ones'self, but shouting into an empty room.

I repeat, burden of proof is on you to show that it is anything else.

[POI]

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.

My prior response still stands. We know humans exist. Your husband is a human. We both know the emotion of love exists. And its quite possible husbands love their wives. Alternatively, with God, we are at a non-starter. Does a God or god(s) exist?

Regardless of if we ever physically meet or not, you can still do NO BETTER to demonstrate the mere existence of the God in which you claim is real. Alternatively, it would be quite easy to demonstrate and produce evidence of your husband. Especially if we were to meet.

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?

No, I respectfully say you are talking to yourself. And nothing you have provided demonstrates to the contrary. I sometimes talk to myself too. It provides comfort I reckon. Alternatively, you get an audible response from your spouse, in which others can verify completely detached from your testimonial alone. Case/point, the question you avoid below. If I met your husband, I could only tell him my middle name. I could then ask you to ask him what I told him, and then you could tell me. But you will refuse, in this case, because I think that, deep down, you know "God" ain't gonna respond regardless. And NOT for the reason you gave below. But instead, that it's more likely you already know that you are only talking to yourself in any/all prayer.

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.

See above...

[POI]

But, how would you prove God is not listening or hearing?

Is proving a negative possible? How might anyone prove that an invisible agency ISN'T actually there? What evidence would specifically satisfy you? How did you effectively rule out all the claimed invisible agencies, for which you now doubt exist?

[1213]

But, how would you prove God is not listening or hearing?

Is proving a negative possible? How might anyone prove that an invisible agency ISN'T actually there? What evidence would specifically satisfy you? How did you effectively rule out all the claimed invisible agencies, for which you now doubt exist?

If you can't prove it, why do you make the claim He is not listening?

[TRANSPONDER]

But, how would you prove God is not listening or hearing?

Is proving a negative possible? How might anyone prove that an invisible agency ISN'T actually there? What evidence would specifically satisfy you? How did you effectively rule out all the claimed invisible agencies, for which you now doubt exist?

If you can't prove it, why do you make the claim He is not listening?

Because the evidence that the voice in our head is our own mind, the requests for prayers don't get answered as often as not and beleivers do the old thing of counting the hits and ignoring the misses, and people who get messages from their god differ about what the message is, or which god it is.

Thus it is a fair question to ask - why do you think a god is listening? How do you make the case to anyone else? If you make the claim and we raise doubts - as the old 'God hates the same people you do' pretty much is a debunk - the the need to make your case (burden of proof) falls on you.

If you do not see that, it is the old and basic a priori fallacy that invalidates pretty much all Christian (and indeed most religious) apologetics; they have no valid basis for their basic beliefv that 'God exists' is the default claim.

The world we know of works without a god (Materialist default) is the logical and evidence -based position and the burden of proof has always been on the Theist, (creationist at least) even since Darwin provided a natural mechanism for evolution, which had been known before his time anyway.

cue "I don't care what you say; I believe it". Another fallacious idea (should anyone argue it) that i have often seen. The Believer thinks that if they deny everything (logical reasoning, scientific evidence) they win. They don't, if the point of debate is to persuade the audience. Which is why I never agree to DM discussions - they are pointless. The only valid point in us being here (apart from learning and clarifying ideas and correcting mistakes ) is to get the better case over to a hoped - for listening audience.

[POI]

But, how would you prove God is not listening or hearing?

Is proving a negative possible? How might anyone prove that an invisible agency ISN'T actually there? What evidence would specifically satisfy you? How did you effectively rule out all the claimed invisible agencies, for which you now doubt exist?

If you can't prove it, why do you make the claim He is not listening?

Because I have no intelligible reason(s) to believe you are doing anything other than speaking to yourself in prayer. But, you did not address my inquiries. (rinse/repeat):

1) Is proving a negative possible?
2) How might anyone prove that an invisible agency ISN'T actually there?
3) What evidence would specifically satisfy you?
4) How did you effectively rule out all the claimed invisible agencies, for which you do not believe in?