If God Knows the Future, Why Pray? (Interview with Dr. Scott Davison)

[@meggriffin3135]

God always answer prayers. Sometimes it's "Yes." But sometimes it's "No." And sometimes it's "Wait." He always answers "Yes" to prayers requesting for wisdom, salvation and forgiveness.

[@roys1057]

Hi! I understand that you believe this, but I don't. How do you know whether or not you got an answer? If there was no God, wouldn't you see the same pattern?

[@sqlblindman]

You just described the Magic 8-Ball.

[@theservantsresource3565]

roy s if there was no God, the “pattern” would be absolute chaos. Assuming that nature could somehow create the thinking beings we are on its own (it can’t), the near accidents you’ve experienced in designed and manufactured automobiles all your life, would have resulted in your demise the first time. But materialists seldom stop to wonder why the science they put so much faith in, actually works according to law and reason. The answer is staring us in the face. The science that started because reasonable people believed in a reasonable God, works, because there IS a lawgiver, as opposed to mere blind chance; a lawgiver who cares to keep us living in a world where sometimes what appears as cold, random indifference, is actually marked and sealed with His grace.

[@sqlblindman]

@@theservantsresource3565 "if there was no God, the “pattern” would be absolute chaos." False. Dynamic systems self-organize without the need for any divine intervention. "But materialists seldom stop to wonder why the science they put so much faith in, actually works according to law and reason." Same can be said of Theists, of course. But while theists who ponder it stop short at "goddidit", materialst actually find the answers and use them to improve our lives. "The science that started because reasonable people believed in a reasonable God" That is not how science started. Modern science actually did not begin until after the Reformation (which diluted the power of the Church) and the Enlightenment (which diluted the power of scriptures). So science developed in spite of religion, not because of it.

[@theservantsresource3565]

sqlblindman “Dynamuc systems self-organize without the need for any divine intervention.” True, but superfluous to the point. Dynamic systems, or functionally specified, irreducible complexity systems are marked by the same indicators of design we find in systems we know to be designed. DNA, for example, functions as a code. When we consider the origin of life on earth, functioning DNA would have been necessary for the kind of “self organization” that caused the emergence of higher, more complex life forms. So purposeless, blind nature, did not produce coded DNA on its own. A designer is required. And no, the same cannot be said of theists. Theists recognize God as just such a designer, who has the ability to purposely design life with function, complexity and diversity, and place it in just the right location in the universe to sustain it.

[@YTuser874]

43:00. I think the same question could be posed, “Why doesn’t God answer the prayers for married couples not to get divorced, cars not to get repossessed, people to not get evicted from homes, homosexuality not to run rampant.” The list goes on an on of things that happen in this world that are a result of the fall. Dr. Frank Turek often says that if God wanted to remove all of the evil in the world, he may start with you.

[@drumrnva]

If He started with me, rather than with mass murderers, pandemics, etc., He's an idiot.

[@drumrnva]

@@TheCaroluss lol... hadn't heard that one yet, and I like it... but then, if one's intent is to cut a pizza while it's hot, edge is far better than point. Do you dispute that a mass murderer is a less desirable member for a society than a petty thief?

[@dco8886]

Right 😂 people never count themselves.

[@brockpilchowski7826]

If God I timeless, he must he must be outside of time and in all time because he is infinite therefore he knows everything that will happens in the future. And he must know possible futures otherwise he is not all know and would have no idea who will be saved. Which goes against what we read in the bible.

[@oswaldcobblebot]

We might say that He knows All Possible futures, but as we as humans have free will, we choose the path we are taking. He knows all other paths we could have taken in that moment, but we collapse all other possibilities in every time we apply our free will.

[@damon9330]

Nothing Fails Like Prayer

[@AtamMardes]

If there is an omniscient God and God does what God wants, then you are insulting God when you pray to God because you are implying God doesn't know what God is doing.

[@benjoleo]

no, you are insulting god by making such stupid youtube comments

[@Draezeth]

Matthew 22:29 And Jesus answered and said to them, *You err, not knowing the Scriptures* nor the power of God. Aaaaand: Isaiah 45:11 *Thus says Jehovah,* The Holy One of Israel and the One who formed him, Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons, And concerning the work of My hands, *command Me.* I love breaking out Matthew 22:29.

[@AtamMardes]

@@Draezeth "It (Bible) is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies." Mark Twain

[@AtamMardes]

@@benjoleo Based on psychiatric medical science, you are hallucinating if you think an invisible being is giving you commands / comments.

[@benjoleo]

@@AtamMardes thank you for opening my eyes. I completely changed my perspective on life itself because that's something that happens in youtube comment sections

[@arrteemarchellion1284]

I think some discussion of the Trinity (and each of its aspects) and how it all relates to prayer would be interesting and maybe essential.

[@mrmemyselfandi9609]

I'm a believer but I don't have the FIRST clue about prayer or how it works. Some people have some crazy ideas...but I'm kinda like my buddy who says..."I only pray about stuff I can't control. Like other peoples health etc....but everything else is up to me...and God couldn't care less." He lives a GREAT life and he's not religious...but he's a believer in Jesus....and he's never tortured while dangling on a string waiting for God to do something for him. That's the worst part as a believer...waiting for God to do something and it never comes. Crappy way to live. It's enough to make you give up faith altogether! So...I believe...but prayer? When I start to see God speak to me...or answer prayer in ways I KNOW is for real, then I'll stop being so pessimistic about how it works. Doesn't mean there isn't a God...just means prayer isn't what some people think.

[@morty3327]

Prayer is pointless. People pray to feel like they're doing something, but in reality they're doing nothing.

[@Rogarquest]

Some time later the son of the woman who owned the house became ill. He grew worse and worse, and finally stopped breathing. She said to Elijah, “What do you have against me, man of God? Did you come to remind me of my sin and kill my son?” “Give me your son,” Elijah replied. He took him from her arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his bed. Then he cried out to the Lord, “Lord my God, have you brought tragedy even on this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die?” Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried out to the Lord, “Lord my God, let this boy’s life return to him!” The Lord heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived. 1 kings 17 17-22

[@user-vm3qq6od2e]

I think Dr. Davison was referring to art prodigy Akiane Kramarik. At age 8 she painted a portrait of Jesus that was featured in the book _Heaven is for Real._

[@reliefbelief]

38:42 Davison assents to the theory by Swinburne that, roughly, God won't answer the door to call 911 for an accident down the street, because the person knocking is either a) not morally blameless and/or b) has more than a single reason (perhaps they want to help but would also appreciate the accident not blocking the street). One wonders if he's considered that pastors, being paid to be pastors, might not have their prayers listened to?

[@roys1057]

Why are so many Christians resistant to the idea that the effects of prayer should be measurable? Do you not believe that the hand of God is noticeable in this world?

[@scottdavison9610]

I think people don't want to put God to the test, that's part of the resistance here.

[@roys1057]

@@scottdavison9610 Okay, that's the part I understand, thanks. For me as an atheist, that's a bit suspect. It sounds a bit like "there's an omnipotent God who acts on our lives! But don't look into it"

[@scottdavison9610]

@@roys1057 I agree that this looks suspicious. But I think it's also what we might expect. Do you know William Alston's work on religious experience? I could send you a paper of his in which he talks about what would be reasonable for us to expect here. You might not find it all convincing, but at least he tries to address your question, at least with respect to some experiences.

[@roys1057]

@@scottdavison9610 That's okay, but I appreciate it! (I'm only here for the intellectually stimulating conversations. And because of a slight internet addiction, haha)

[@brutuslugo3969]

@Sara Rainey you're over complicating prayer so you always get A positive result. Basically you have no way to say doesn't work . How would you determine prayer isn't working?

[@Dom_Traveler]

A study published in the journal Neuropsychologia has shown that religious fundamentalism is, in part, the result of a functional impairment in a brain region known as the prefrontal cortex. The findings suggest that damage to particular areas of the prefrontal cortex indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by diminishing cognitive flexibility and openness-a psychology term that describes a personality trait which involves dimensions like curiosity, creativity, and open-mindedness. Religious beliefs can be thought of as socially transmitted mental representations that consist of supernatural events and entities assumed to be real. Religious beliefs differ from empirical beliefs, which are based on how the world appears to be and are updated as new evidence accumulates or when new theories with better predictive power emerge. On the other hand, religious beliefs are not usually updated in response to new evidence or scientific explanations, and are therefore strongly associated with conservatism. They are fixed and rigid, which helps promote predictability and coherence to the rules of society among individuals within the group. Religious fundamentalism refers to an ideology that emphasizes traditional religious texts and rituals and discourages progressive thinking about religion and social issues. Fundamentalist groups generally oppose anything that questions or challenges their beliefs or way of life. For this reason, they are often aggressive towards anyone who does not share their specific set of supernatural beliefs, and towards science, as these things are seen as existential threats to their entire worldview. Since religious beliefs play a massive role in driving and influencing human behavior throughout the world, it is important to understand the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism from a psychological and neurological perspective. To investigate the cognitive and neural systems involved in religious fundamentalism, a team of researchers-led by Jordan Grafman of Northwestern University-conducted a study that utilized data from Vietnam War veterans that had been gathered previously. The vets were specifically chosen because a large number of them had damage to brain areas suspected of playing a critical role in functions related to religious fundamentalism. CT scans were analyzed comparing 119 vets with brain trauma to 30 healthy vets with no damage, and a survey that assessed religious fundamentalism was administered. While the majority of participants were Christians of some kind, 32.5% did not specify a particular religion. Based on previous research, the experimenters predicted that the prefrontal cortex would play a role in religious fundamentalism, since this region is known to be associated with something called ‘cognitive flexibility’. This term refers to the brain’s ability to easily switch from thinking about one concept to another, and to think about multiple things simultaneously. Cognitive flexibility allows organisms to update beliefs in light of new evidence, and this trait likely emerged because of the obvious survival advantage such a skill provides. It is a crucial mental characteristic for adapting to new environments because it allows individuals to make more accurate predictions about the world under new and changing conditions. Brain imaging research has shown that a major neural region associated with cognitive flexibility is the prefrontal cortex-specifically two areas known as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC). Additionally, the vmPFC was of interest to the researchers because past studies have revealed its connection to fundamentalist-type beliefs. For example, one study showed individuals with vmPFC lesions rated radical political statements as more moderate than people with normal brains, while another showed a direct connection between vmPFC damage and religious fundamentalism. For these reasons, in the present study, researchers looked at patients with lesions in both the vmPFC and the dlPFC, and searched for correlations between damage in these areas and responses to religious fundamentalism questionnaires. According to Dr. Grafman and his team, since religious fundamentalism involves a strict adherence to a rigid set of beliefs, cognitive flexibility and open-mindedness present a challenge for fundamentalists. As such, they predicted that participants with lesions to either the vmPFC or the dlPFC would score low on measures of cognitive flexibility and trait openness and high on measures of religious fundamentalism. The results showed that, as expected, damage to the vmPFC and dlPFC was associated with religious fundamentalism. Further tests revealed that this increase in religious fundamentalism was caused by a reduction in cognitive flexibility and openness resulting from the prefrontal cortex impairment. Cognitive flexibility was assessed using a standard psychological card sorting test that involved categorizing cards with words and images according to rules. Openness was measured using a widely-used personality survey known as the NEO Personality Inventory. The data suggests that damage to the vmPFC indirectly promotes religious fundamentalism by suppressing both cognitive flexibility and openness. These findings are important because they suggest that impaired functioning in the prefrontal cortex-whether from brain trauma, a psychological disorder, a drug or alcohol addiction, or simply a particular genetic profile-can make an individual susceptible to religious fundamentalism. And perhaps in other cases, extreme religious indoctrination harms the development or proper functioning of the prefrontal regions in a way that hinders cognitive flexibility and openness. The authors emphasize that cognitive flexibility and openness aren’t the only things that make brains vulnerable to religious fundamentalism. In fact, their analyses showed that these factors only accounted for a fifth of the variation in fundamentalism scores. Uncovering those additional causes, which could be anything from genetic predispositions to social influences, is a future research project that the researchers believe will occupy investigators for many decades to come, given how complex and widespread religious fundamentalism is and will likely continue to be for some time.

[@roys1057]

Hi! Your post is unreadable due to problems with spacing/hard returns. (It's also pretty long, but that's up to you)

[@philb4462]

I felt compelled to click this because I wanted to see how they strung out "No" to 53 minutes.

[@joshuapearson9950]

I would like a clarification about your comment about Charismatics? I’m not a Charismatic, but I am a Oneness Pentecostal and realize there are similarities in our communities in believing in Spiritual gifts being active today.

[@sukka4pain]

Repent from your Unitarianism.

[@joshuapearson9950]

sukka 1P57 even Dr. William Lane Craig said Moses didn’t believe in the Trinity and “never heard of it”. If Moses knew God “face to face” (Exodus 33:11), wrote 5 books of the Bible, even had the glory of God pass by him, and didn’t believe in the Trinity why should I? I believe the same thing as the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 9:6), Jesus Christ (John 10:30, John 14:8-10), and the Apostle Paul (Colossians 2:9). All of God was incarnate in Jesus. He is the Father made flesh and the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily. Why would I choose to believe 2nd to 4th century philosophy instead of God’s Word? Thank you for trying to help me be delivered from what you view to be a lie, but I simply cannot reject the words of Moses, Isaiah, Jesus and Paul for the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. It would mean the Theology of Scripture is false and later traditions were correct.

[@sukka4pain]

@@joshuapearson9950 The doctrine of the Trinity was fully revealed between the incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Spirit. If you knew anything about ancient Judaism you would know that there was a Binitarian view that was present amongst the Jews until the second century, it's called the Two Powers in Heaven theology. If you think Christ prayed to Himself, intercedes before Himself and was "with Himself" (John 1:1b), then I don't know what to tell you. He came not to do His own will, but the will of the Father, hardly an Unitarian concept.

[@joshuapearson9950]

sukka 1P57 Jews believed the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). I’m open to seeing a source for your claim about multiple powers because that certainly would not agree with the entirety of the voice of Scripture. Jesus prayed as a man “in the days of His flesh” (Hebrews 5:7). This cannot be about one divine person praying to another because then they would no longer be “coequal”. That wouldn’t prove a Trinity. Jesus prayed because as true humanity He had to pray. He did the will of the Father as a man. Otherwise that would also be subordination. It was necessary for Him to be a man to be our High Priest and intercede for us (Hebrews 5:1). He had to be the second Adam to redeem us ( Romans 5:12-17). John 1:1 refers to the Logos or the plan in the mind of God that existed before the foundation of the world to redeem humanity from our sin. Even Calvin in his commentary on John 1, which was very Trinitarian, made the admission that the word Logos can refer to a thought. The language of distinction is as Bobby Killmon puts it the “distinction between what God had purposed as Deity but could only accomplish as humanity”.

[@theservantsresource3565]

Joshua Pearson Thoughts don’t become flesh and dwell among us, “full of grace and truth.”

[@uchihadsanchez6473]

Is prayer even necessary? More often than not it's our choices and actions that seem to have more of an effect than just praying. You have a better chance of helping a starving child in Africa by donating than by praying for them.

[@MortenBendiksen]

It seems to me, that if God perfectly knows the future, then neither He nor we have any free will. The Bible seems to scream that both we and He do have free will, and can affect each other. This doesn't take away from His omnipotency, but rather adds to it. Of course He could create a future which He cannot perfectly know if he so desired. He can perfectly control it at the points in time he needs to to create the kind of future where as many as possible choose Him, but chooses to not control it in such a way as to take away our free will. Creating free will might be the very point of the whole story.

[@noahboughdy2648]

Morten Bendiksen God’s omniscience (including future events) doesn’t need to take away from human freedom. It could be the case that God knows what free decisions creatures will make, and therefore knows the future. God doesn’t know the future independent of creaturely freedom. I’d highly recommend William Lane Craig KZbin videos or written articles in this point.

[@logos8312]

@@noahboughdy2648 I don't think that works, and we can demonstrate why with a simple thought experiment. Suppose God knows that individual A will do X. Suppose individual A knows that God knows that A will do X. Suppose individual does not want to do X and will take precautions against doing X up to and including suicide. Would individual A be successful in stopping themselves from doing X, if God omnisciently knows they'll do X? If they can, then God didn't omnisciently know they'd do X in the first place. If they can't, then their action was never free, since even willing themselves against doing X, they were forced to do it anyway.

[@Good147Morning]

@@logos8312 This seems kind of odd. Your example shows that individual A knows a future event prior to it happening. Which is not how our experience works. I think a thought experiment that works better is to view yourself as a game designer. Let's say in this thought experiment that you could give all characters genuine free will. Now you've run all the tests and played through every iteration of the game with all the tweaks so you know exactly how they act with their attributes and the free will with everyone else. (That's just a way to understand God's omniscience) Does the fact that you created this game and all the people in it and every thing they interact with negate their free will? No. They are actually accountable for their actions. You're not telling them to do anything. You know how they'll do everything. But because you gave them free will, you can just hit "play" on the program and let it run itself. (That's not how I think God actually interacts with the world)

[@Good147Morning]

@@logos8312 and more as a direct critique of your analogy, if God knows that x will happen and the person is able to not do it, then God didn't actually "know" that in the first place. He knew that it would happen the way it ended up happening.

[@logos8312]

@@Good147Morning "This seems kind of odd." Granted, thought experiments usually are. "Your example shows that individual A knows a future event prior to it happening. Which is not how our experience works." It's how prophecy works, which is why the thought experiment is conceivable even if not directly applicable, in the same way that Old Testament Prophets might be conceivable even though I've never met one. "I think a thought experiment that works better is to view yourself as a game designer. Let's say in this thought experiment that you could give all characters genuine free will. Now you've run all the tests and played through every iteration of the game with all the tweaks so you know exactly how they act with their attributes and the free will with everyone else." If I know this, and still think they have free will, I'm just handing the point of contention over to you on a silver platter, am I not? I'm telling you that I don't think it's possible both that people have free will AND I know for certain what they'll do in all future scenarios. You can't just paper over that by creating a thought experiment that just assumes that you're correct. That's begging the question. "Does the fact that you created this game and all the people in it and every thing they interact with negate their free will? No." Correct. Merely creating free agents doesn't entail anything about their will necessarily. The contention is about future knowledge, not a creator / creation relationship. "They are actually accountable for their actions. You're not telling them to do anything. You know how they'll do everything." This isn't a conversation about accountability, it's a conversation about whether infallible knowledge can ever negate our will to do otherwise. Your thought experiment didn't put the concepts in opposition the way mine did, so I think I'm just going to stick to mine. Actually I think I'll do one better. I'll note that the implications of my thought experiment are unresolved, and instead I'll play on yours so now you'll have to resolve two. Suppose a mini mart clerk knows that a guy stops by the station on the same time, the same day and buys the same soda from the same place on the shelf. Now also suppose that the mini mart owner knows that someone is going to kill this guy by lacing his drink with arsenic. The mini mart owner knows that the guy is going to sneak in on some night of the week (he doesn't know which one) and lace the precise drink the guy is going to drink out of. You know the guy will stop by on the day / time, buy the drink, drink the arsenic, and die. Now you didn't TELL the guy to buy the drink, nor did you TELL the assassin to lace the guy's drink in the first place. Both people just acted freely, and you knew what would happen. Which statement is more accurate: The guy drank arsenic of his own free will and inexplicably killed himself. The guy didn't mean to drink arsenic, and the mini mart clerk is an accessory to murder, given he had evidence that could have saved the guy's life and withheld it from him? I contend that your thought experiment commits you to the first view, I hold the second.

[@goddamnfaith6607]

What happened to joshua interview on Evolution?

[@SokhomChhim]

TLDW: We don't know if or whether god answers prayer. This is equivalent to asking how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.

[@Daz19]

Christians, is prayer falsifiable? Is there a way to ascertain praying does not work?

[@intermezzo7198]

Yes, if God does not exist then there can be no such thing as a prayer, just delusion.

[@noahboughdy2648]

Depends on what you mean by “does not work”? If by “does not work” you mean something like, “does not lead to the intended course of events”, then it seems the answer is yes (think of the example of Paul discerning that God would not remove the “thorn in his flesh”). However, in that case, it is not as though God did not listen to the prayer, but “responded” (to use the framing put forth in the interview) in a different way, so I wouldn’t really call that a case of prayer “not working”. But even still, falsification is not a requirement for epistemic justification-there are plenty of beliefs we justifiably hold that cannot be falsified (logical axioms, certain metaphysical truths, and interestingly enough, the falsification principle itself!)

[@UnratedAwesomeness]

Daz did you find Dr. Davison’s hedge cutting analogy helpful? Did you find something wrong with his analysis there? If not then perhaps you should check out his work further if you’re looking for an educated perspective. It’s unlikely that random Christians on KZbin who you address are going to give you as sophisticated as the guest of the video.

[@Daz19]

@@noahboughdy2648 Fair pair point let me clarify. How could one distinguish between an unanswered prayer vs a prayer answered in a unknown or ambiguous way? Basically how could one go about falsifying prayer, demonstrating a prayer was not answered? I'd agree certain foundational axioms can't be falsified. However I don't see prayer as a self evident truth nor a metaphysical truth, as its a phenomena which is alleged to be causally linked to the praying subject, which involves an interaction with physical reality.

[@Daz19]

@@UnratedAwesomeness hi, sorry to be a pain, could you provide me the time stamp for the analogy? if not no worries I'll re-watch as I seem to have missed it.

[@MrSiloterio]

If God doesn't exist and people still pray, on what standard is it objectively bad?

[@roys1057]

That doesn't have to be bad. Prayer can have positive psychological effects. But it can be bad, for example when prayer is used instead of medicine. I recognise the underlying question about objective morality, I'm happy to get into that if you want!

[@AWalkOnDirt]

If prayer was proven effective, I would be a Christian. But it isn’t. This single issue is evidence against the Christian god

[@leinadtresmegisto8636]

This is rich... so basically you must admit that Mark 11:24 is a straight up lie? Your book keeps on letting everyone down between all the obscure unfullfilled prophecies and the lies...

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

I am in no way an advocate for charismatic Christianity, but did you just day they are not Christian? Do Explain.

[@TKK0812]

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift (charis) of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" Like it or not, all Christians are "charismatic". As a colloquial charistmatic myself however, I would say that the continuation of the gifts is to me one of the most non-arguable doctrines of the NT. Anyway, I agree with the sentiment of your comment. Charismatics are most certainly Christians, even if you believe for some reason the gifts have ceased.

[@roys1057]

@@TKK0812 I personally think that cessationists aren't really Christians, what do you think? (Is it working? Am I sowing discord?)

[@TKK0812]

@@roys1057 Depends on if one thinks they have a Biblically based case (you're an atheist, correct?). I think sowing discord would be anything done to intentionally cause discord like gossip, slander, etc. However, someone simply holding to a position that I just don't like is not sowing discord, especially if they are willing to dialogue.

[@roys1057]

@@TKK0812 Haha thanks for responding like that. You seem like a good ambassador for charismatic Christianity.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

@@TKK0812 I am. And you are also an Adventist like me, who is a Seventh Day Adventist. I believe in the gifts. You should become a Sabbath keeper, too. Its part of the moral law. Made by God, before the fall. Think about it. What were shadow laws about? Pointing to the Messiah who saves from the fall. From sin and death. The weekly sabbath was instituted before there was a need for the Messiah. The Day of the Lord, is Lord Jesus Day, who said He was Lord of the Sabbath I meant aggressive, unbiblical gobbledygook when I said "charismatic". Should have been more specific. But I was more just wanting Cameron to explain what he meant. While stating that I was not part of the denomination which is commonly distinguished as charismatic. Like how you are also adventist, unless you deny Jesus second coming? But really, it would just make to confuse to try to use it that way, no?

[@spanish_realms]

If you pray to God and your prayer isn't answered it was either God's will that your prayer wasn't answered or you didn't pray hard enough i.e. without enough conviction. Or, more likely, praying to God for anything was a total waste of time. If you consider that your prayer has been answered it means you've conned yourself into thinking that God had something to do with it since there is, by definition, God being apparently beyond space and time and impervious to access by mortals, no objective means of distinguishing between something occurring by his hand and mere coincidence. You pray for the recovery of a loved one from serious illness. They recover, perhaps against all medical predictions. It means they've recovered. People sometimes do. Utterly fallacious to associate God with it. And that is even if he does exist.

[@paradisecityX0]

What a butchering of logic

[@spanish_realms]

@@paradisecityX0 " My channel is dedicated to the goal of dispelling the fuzziness some people may have about God & faith in general - instigated by the propaganda these ideological New Atheists peddle. " Well, perhaps you would dispel a little of the fuzziness of your unsupported assertion and demonstrate the flaws in my logic. As, not a God, but by definition an imperfect being, I would greatly appreciate it. However, don't assume that any logical flaws were because of ignorance, maybe, just maybe, they were deliberately inserted for effect. Btw: they're not "New Atheists", just the same old atheists i.e. people who, for a variety of reasons, remain or have become unconvinced by arguments positing the existence of God or Gods.

[@paradisecityX0]

@@spanish_realms As opposed to the unsupported assertions you just made? kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3O5gGuabbqpm9E this does it quite well. Where have you been the past 15 years? New Atheists are distinguished from normal atheists as uncultured spergs and damaged pseudo intellectuals who are self-congratulating about their Lacktheistm and unable to live and let live -- the ideological equivalent of rabid fundagelicals. We can call them Anti-theists if you prefer

[@woody7652]

It's never worked and never will. How many times do you have to pray before you realize no one is there?

[@MindzEyz]

What about the position that since God is all knowing, that all thought and all desire (conscious and subliminal) is prayer, even the bad thoughts and wishes? So in that view purposeful prayer may be useless, in the way that people are in constant connection and in prayer. This would also lean into the thought of committing sin through thought (prayer).

[@roys1057]

Prayer is normally viewed as deliberate communication with a deity. I think your thought might be better represented by the following question: "Does the fact that God knows our thoughts and desires make prayer superfluous?" (I'll leave it to Christians to reply to your question. They'll probably say that God *wants* you to pray)

[@MindzEyz]

@@roys1057 I agree that this is the "normal" viewpoint... as a christian I feel as though I'm being completely redundant to pray for things to happen or for myself. I always pray for God to do his will and for us to be able to accept it for what it is. I also pray that we can be given the knowledge as to the answer to the prayer, as these two are discussing in the video. Thanks.

[@roys1057]

@@MindzEyz I have to say, that does sound redundant. Maybe someone reading this can help you out. (Or maybe not: from my point of view, Christian theology doesn't paint a coherent picture.)

[@roys1057]

@@MindzEyz I misread what you said. Your actual reasons for praying also seem redundant to me, under your God concept! - God will do his bidding regardless of your prayer - You have no choice but to accept his will - Praying for the strength to better cope with whatever happens is essentially praying for something to happen, or praying for yourself. We're left with praying to know how your prayers were answered. But if none of your prayers cause anything to change, then the answer is always the same: whatever happens happens according to God's will, and you have to accept this. I see no need to ask for this knowledge. Unless it is foreknowledge that you are actually after: how will God's will be manifest in reality.

[@jacoblee5796]

Mark 11:24, NIV: "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." ... Mark 11:24, NASB: "'Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you." So god must not exist....

[@andrewgilbertson5672]

I mean... Jesus clearly and repeatedly prayed to the Father before a miracle occurred as a model to us, and commended us o do the same. I think all the models of prayer here and the idea of being a direct cause of the answered prayer try to put God in a box; God is a multitasker. Just as Christ died for the whole world yet no less for the love of you, individually, I don't think there's any conflict in something that God did indeed already intended to do (in His sovereignty) also being a granting of your petition- nor do I think it's any less of a granting of your petitionary prayer if He has additional reasons beside your having prayed it to have done so. As usual with our amazingly-complex, incredibly-talented God, it's not a case of either-or, but of both-and. god's God at having multiple purposes, meanings, intentions, and lessons in everything that He does.

[@PrideofIpplepen]

Andrew Gilbertson - I believe that Jesus certainly gives us a good example of the behavior that God expects but, being God Himself, it is difficult to imagine how He would NOT be praying “in the Will pf God” and thus, consequently, His prayers would be granted. His prayer in the Garden to “Let this Cup pass from Me....” seems to counter that argument with some of His “God Knowledge” being veiled. I can’t get away from God being Omniscient and, in knowing everything before it happens (and not “looking down the corridors of time”) He would not be swayed from His perfect will but a tiny request from us. I believe that the “you receive not because you ask not” comment from Christ is referring to the blessing we receive when our request is apparently granted but the “receiving” is the realization that we prayed in accord with His Will. What a blessing and what a gift to know that our will was aligned with His.

[@TKK0812]

Whoa, Cam! Did you say in the beginning that you aren't sure if charismatics ought to be considered Christians? I challenge you to a formal debate, good sir.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

right? I am not even charismatic and would push back on some of their ideas.

[@TKK0812]

​@@Jamie-Russell-CME I am a full on charismatic and I would push back on many of the abuses within charismatic theology as well. I think when people hear charismatic they usually come to understand what that means through TV preachers or faith healers or popular churches etc. However, there are a lot of sound, thoughtful, and Biblically based charismatic churches out there that fully embrace the continuation of the gifts. Blessings, Jamie

[@calebp6114]

Agreed, Keegan.

[@TKK0812]

@Chicken Nuggets Define "real" for me so we're on the same page

[@TKK0812]

@Chicken Nuggets It is possible, and I have some miraculous testimonies of people hearing tongues spoken in their language when to the speaker or those around the speaker it wasn't a known language. This is part of why Paul says in 1 Cor 14 that the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, indeed no one understands him. Tongues is primarily a vertical language, it's not a method of sharing the Gospel in a language you don't know or anything like that. If it was always a "real" language by which I assume we mean a well known or accepted language, then we could just simply circumvent the other gift of interpretation with Google translate, but I don't think that's the case. I have witnessed people speak in a language they previously have not known, but the majority of the time it does seem to be an unknown language.

[@roofuscat2]

Walk into a childrens hospital and see how effective prayer is.. The efficacy of prayer has been studied. It failed. - How about this example. Does your prayer help you pass a test? If it actually did help, wouldn't that be cheating and outlawed?

[@roys1057]

God's law supersedes the laws of man, so there is no problem with praying for good test results. But there are no guarantees that your prayers will be answered, and they may be answered in a different way than you expect. Also if you are not righteous and sincere, and you're praying just to see what happens, God will definitely not answer your prayers. Your question about the children's hospital would take more time to answer. In short, it has to do with free will: humans chose to live a life of suffering when they chose the Tree of Knowledge. Disclaimer: I'm pretty new to apologetics. Christians, how did I do?

[@roofuscat2]

@Selin S. If it's acording to his will. Then he answered nothing. He was going to do it anyway. Use your head. Also. Imagine you were the All-powerful governor of the universe. Would you have any need to be glorified? This is absurd.

[@bobyabraham3470]

Funny discussion

[@paradisecityX0]

Seems even after this, village-Atheists still think prayer is an incantation spell.

[@roys1057]

Two questions: What's a village atheist? And why do you think I don't understand prayer?

[@roys1057]

I thought about this some more, and yes. From my perspective, certain types of prayer are precisely that: an incantation spell.

[@paradisecityX0]

@@roys1057 Your perspective, not that of academics

[@roys1057]

How would you define an incantation spell? Then maybe we can agree whether some types of prayer fall into this category. No academics required.

[@paradisecityX0]

@@roys1057 Triggering a desired effect. Something akin to having your wish granted by a genie

[@newtonarori7344]

Prayer is pretty much talking to yourself

[@roys1057]

Which can be a good thing!

[@paradisecityX0]

Where's your evidence?

[@newtonarori7344]

It can be good or extremely dangerous

[@roys1057]

@@rethink_it That's true (and I wasn't claiming otherwise)

[@Draezeth]

You're free to think that.

[@williamwrightjr.2765]

Anyone can recommend an edifying book on the types of prayer, how to pray, and perhaps the history of Christian prayer?

[@LostArchivist]

Depends on what you define as edifying or prayer.

[@williamwrightjr.2765]

@@LostArchivist I'll accept your definition.

[@khayamabusela5391]

'Praying in the Holy Spirit' by Charles Spurgeon was incredibly helpful for me.

[@williamwrightjr.2765]

@@khayamabusela5391 Thanks so much! There are endless books on Prayer and I have no idea which ones to read. I did start Tim Keller's book on Prayer but lost interest. Thanks again. :) Spurgeon is awesome and I did not know he wrote a book on prayer, but I see it now -- The Power of Prayer.

[@leinadtresmegisto8636]

So... this "God" character you mention already knows if you'll pray or not and also won't change anything he's already determined? Also there's no way of knowing if "successful" prayers are actually a thing? Now that was helpful! Seems every claim about prayer uttered in this video is basically unfalsifiable... how convenient.

[@TKK0812]

Leinad Trismegistus Truth is extremely convenient

[@calebp6114]

You sentences are an acrostic for sans btw.

[@leinadtresmegisto8636]

@@TKK0812 What truth are you referring to?

[@sqlblindman]

Christians: "God exists. Now what other things must I believe in order to make that consistent with my observations?" Rational people: "Here are my observations. What can I conclude based upon them?" Scientists: "Here is my hypothesis. How can I disprove it?"

[@merrillbartle4174]

Because you don’t know the future..✝️

[@roys1057]

There's nothing bizarre about using an experimental setup to measure the effect prayer has on patient recovery. I see no reason why that couldn't work. Full disclosure: atheist talking (Far from the only atheist here, I see. Sorry about that, Christians!)

[@scottdavison9610]

But you would have to assume that the differences in patient recovery were due only to the differences that you can measure with respect to prayer, and not to anything else, including God's possible purposes in healing the members of one group (but not the other one).

[@roys1057]

@@scottdavison9610 Well, good experiments are set up precisely so that hidden variables can't influence the results. You could, for instance, randomise who you pray for. And you could repeat the experiment time after time, and add up the results. Imagine we did this thousands of times, with millions of test subjects. If we then saw that the patients that were prayed for didn't fare any differently from the others, would that be convincing to you?

[@scottdavison9610]

@@roys1057 I would not be confident even in that ideal case. The reason is that our way of randomizing might, by cosmic coincidence, select groups that happen to skew the result -- there is just no possible way for us to check. With physical constants, we assume that we know what the possible variables are, but in this case, we have no idea.

[@roys1057]

@@scottdavison9610 That would imply God purposefully arranging health outcomes to make it appear as though prayer had no effect.

[@Draezeth]

@@roys1057 I think it's more of a case of God just not answering prayers with that kind of motive behind them.

[@jeffp1289]

"philosophy is sometime not the best source of practical advice.." This is my favorite line from the whole interview. The only evidence for god, is from philosophy.

[@LostArchivist]

Our own natures and the make-up of physical reality as a contiguous whole do a pretty good job too. Also the Shroud of Turin and the rise of Christianity itself.

[@jeffp1289]

@@LostArchivist The Shroud of Turin has been shown to be too young. That is a testable fact. Rise of Christianity itself? You can just a easily say the rise of Islam itself. But I am curious, how does the make-up of physical reality constitute evidence for the christian god?

[@theservantsresource3565]

Jeff P DNA, a programming language, molecular machines, etc., demonstrate design; intentionality in living things. In fact, many biologists, some who are not themselves theists, argue that biological complexity has the “appearance of design.” I think the more we learn about DNA, and cell replication, the more the “appearance of design” will strongly imply actual design. If so, this does not automatically imply that a god designed biological organisms, but a god is certainly a contender, and natural processes alone are essentially eliminated. The universe had a beginning. This fact strongly supports the cosmological argument. Afterlife and out of body experiences strongly point to a mind outside of the body, which would support the existence of a realm outside of nature: a supernatural state of being, that is not contingent on natural processes. Dating the Turin shroud is not as simple as you make it sound. As a relic of religious significance, it has changed hands frequently over centuries, been damaged, repaired, and repaired again. Not all of the materials on the shroud are from the same time period, which unfortunately has caused mistakes to be made in the dating. There is strong evidence to suggest that the original material of the shroud dates to the 1st Century. This doesn’t mean it’s the actual burial cloth of Jesus, but the visual details of the shroud bear striking resemblance to details depicted in several gospel narratives, and independently so, lending support to the historicity of the narratives themselves, to the nature and methods of Roman execution in the 1st century, and to the burial practices depicted in the gospels. Personally, I find the evidence compelling enough to support the claim that it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus.

[@jeffp1289]

@@theservantsresource3565 I appreciate your response, you seem sincere. DNA, molecular machines don’t demonstrate design. To demonstrate it, you need to know how they are designed. The appearance of design is not design. A snow flake, a crystal, are not designed, but using the same logic you can claim they are. You need to demonstrate design, not imply design. As best we can tell, our universe had a beginning, but we don’t know what happened before that. To claim its god, because we don’t know is wrong. We need to demonstrate it, not imply it. We have tested out of body experiences before, that they have all failed. I wouldn’t say there is no god, because we can’t test it. But all you have posted in evidence are implied, appears to be, and legends. I recommend watching some utube videos of Ken Miller, his is a Christian cell biologist. He’s got some good stuff.

[@theservantsresource3565]

Jeff P With all due respect. A snowflake or crystal are not the same as a functional biological mechanism such as a molecular machine, or DNA. Don’t you think there just might be something different about say a DNA strand, compared to a snowflake, which would make it more likely to have been designed?