http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI


What do you guys think of this? Is this guy's argument viable?

I personally think it's retarded, because its based solely on presuppositions, doesn't quote the Bible at all for passages regarding how prayer works, and pretty much proves nothing except that milk jugs do not answer prayers.

Is it a valid argument?

Sure, I see no logical inconsistencies, or fallacies, so yes it is a valid argument. Which means if you seek to argue it, you will need to tear down some of the basic principles he outlined.



The principle is this:

God is presented in such a way as to never be wrong.

A jug of milk can be presented in such a way.

---------------

God could have easily been made up, as easily as a person can make up a god-like prayer answering jug of milk.

an excellent illustration on how easy it is to con people.

Is it a valid argument?

Sure, I see no logical inconsistencies, or fallacies, so yes it is a valid argument. Which means if you seek to argue it, you will need to tear down some of the basic principles he outlined.



The principle is this:

God is presented in such a way as to never be wrong.

A jug of milk can be presented in such a way.

---------------

God could have easily been made up, as easily as a person can make up a god-like prayer answering jug of milk.

I just find it interesting that he never once quotes anything from the Bible (or any other religious texts for that matter) concerning prayer.

His source of information for how prayer works is Christianity.com, and that is just one of many websites offering the man's opinion on Christianity, not the authoritative word of God. An infinitely powerful God cannot be fully understood by our puny human logic.

Tear down his principles? His main argument is that prayer is nothing more than a coincidence, and he cites scientific "research" to back up that claim. Why would I expect God to prove Himself? The Bible makes it clear that "you shalt not test the Lord thy God", so of course nothing is going to happen when those patients were prayed for. An all-knowing God is going to be aware that He is being tested.

His entire video is based on nothing but assumptions.

His source of information for how prayer works is Christianity.com, and that is just one of many websites offering the man's opinion on Christianity, not the authoritative word of God. An infinitely powerful God cannot be fully understood by our puny human logic..

Okay, let's see what you think.....

Does God answer prayer?
Does God always answer prayer?
Does God HAVE to answer prayer in a timely fashion?

--------

Methinks yes, no and wait are accurate descriptions of the Christian God's prayer answering abilities.

--------

Tear down his principles? His main argument is that prayer is nothing more than a coincidence, and he cites scientific "research" to back up that claim.

It is actual research, you throwing quotes around a research study you have yet to read, or understand more, is rather pretentious.

It is still research even IF you are correct, in YOUR assumption that God knows he is being tested and chooses to fail the test.

Why would I expect God to prove Himself? The Bible makes it clear that "you shalt not test the Lord thy God", so of course nothing is going to happen when those patients were prayed for. An all-knowing God is going to be aware that He is being tested..

How convienent.

When you try to disprove my jug of milk and it's prayer answering power, through scientific tests, I will remind you that you cannot test a jug of milk as powerful and all-knowing as this one. It knows your testing it. Your puny human brain can't even truly comprehend the awesome might of my jug of milk.

Basically the SAME principle in the video at work.

God is presented in such a way as to never be wrong.
ANYTHING can be presented in this way.

His entire video is based on nothing but assumptions.

Your entire faith is based on nothing but assumptions.

You're beat, OP. BP just gave you the lay-down.

Okay, let's see what you think.....
Fair enough.

Does God answer prayer?


Absolutely.


Does God always answer prayer?


No. God does not promise to answer every prayer, there is only the promise that He will hear every prayer. Can you imagine what would happen if God answered every single prayer?

Does God HAVE to answer prayer in a timely fashion?
Well, what exactly does "in a timely fashion" mean to you? God answers prayers at His sole discretion.


Methinks yes, no and wait are accurate descriptions of the Christian God's prayer answering abilities.
That is an opinion....and a non-Biblical one at that. What we pray for MUST be in accordance with God's will. You have to remember that a person must be obedient to God and have the proper motivation for the prayer.



It is actual research, you throwing quotes around a research study you have yet to read, or understand more, is rather pretentious. It is still research even IF you are correct, in YOUR assumption that God knows he is being tested and chooses to fail the test.

First of all, the fact that we are not to test God is not my assumption, it is Biblical stipulation.
Second, I did not say that it wasn't research, I was quoting it because it is simply absurd research. God is not going to bow down to us and prove Himself worthy to us.

Prayer research proves nothing, regardless of the results. The test administrators would still label it "pure chance" or "coincidence", no matter what happens. It's always been this way in any test involving the supernatural.

Heck I've seen similar prayer research involving hospital patients that says the opposite of what the narrator of the video posted, and the same conclusion can be drawn from it: it PROVES NOTHING.


How convienent.

When you try to disprove my jug of milk and it's prayer answering power, through scientific tests, I will remind you that you cannot test a jug of milk as powerful and all-knowing as this one. It knows your testing it. Your puny human brain can't even truly comprehend the awesome might of my jug of milk.
But this is based on the assumption of "Yes, No, Wait" criteria, a completely non-Biblical teaching. Of course "Yes, No, Wait" is always true, how does this prove God is imaginary? God is not bound by this criteria, or bound by anything for that matter.

Basically the SAME principle in the video at work.
No, there is a difference my friend. The biggest flaw in this video is the simple fact that no religious texts (whether it be the Bible, Quran, whatever) were quoted for scriptures concerning prayer. He used the opinion of man as the basis of his argument.

To disprove something, you have to attack it at it's roots. In the narrators case, this was not done properly. This is because disproving Christianity would require disproving its foundation (in this case the Bible), but he didn't mention the Bible even once!

The passages he did quote from the Bible in his other videos (like the "Jesus is imaginary" one), were completely taken out of context.

God is presented in such a way as to never be wrong.

ANYTHING can be presented in this way.

As I have already mentioned, the same principles do not apply. There is no set criteria for how God answers prayers, because there is no way to wrap our minds around the supernatural.

It is for this same reason that prayer cannot be disproven through scientific research. Logic and science both have these boundaries, in that they cannot measure anything outside the physical materialistic universe we live in.

Your entire faith is based on nothing but assumptions.
How so? I'd love to hear them.

Im not a christian at all, and i think whilst the man comes across as a massive douche bag ( just my opinion) he has a good point, and the analogy is spot on.

I say douche bag because he was implying anyone who disagrees with his perspective is unintelligent, and there's no need to create animosity on purpose.

His christian based information was drawn from websites and hypothetical Christians from the internet, whilst his scientific sources where the most valid he could find im sure.

Heres the problem- He didnt discuss the "yes, no, wait" in enough detail, thats his prerogative to say that but i felt he didnt justify it very well because he claimed this was the christian understanding.

We all know if you want to understand a principle you look at the principal not the people who follow it, his bias shows when he gives scientific principals but anecdotal christian evidence.

This man know doubt is intelligent and he purposely did no source from the bible because he wanted to manipulate the christian definition of prayer to his benefit.

Now if he truely believed information should be taken from peoples perspectives, he should have shown scientific persons not principals and secondly should have gone through the various interpretations of prayer on account of the fuckload of christian denominations.

I think he had a good think going but fucked it up by purposely using inconsist evidence.

The man clearly follows science and academia and in these schools books and journals are always seen as more authoritative than websites and peoples subjective inferences, therefore this video contains to much bias to be considered valid IMO.

The principle is this:

God is presented in such a way as to never be wrong.

A jug of milk can be presented in such a way.

---------------

God could have easily been made up, as easily as a person can make up a god-like prayer answering jug of milk.

---------------

If you feel that yes, no and wait are unfair assumptions about how God answers prayer, feel free to offer a fourth possibility that undoes the logic presented in the video......

^^

You just dont get it mate.

Prayer is a christian concept so you use the bible as a source, im not going to deny that "yes, no and wait" is the logical rationalization for prayer, im just asking is that really what the bible says.

You might not like it but if your dealing with a christian phoenomenon when your taking the christian perspective is must be derived from christian scriptures, whether id be the apocraphers the gnostic gospels the scriptures of the essenes or the bible this is the evidence the video lacks.

"Yes, no and wait" are not verified with the valid source , so it is a fallacious argument.

End of story.

1. Prayer isn't a solely Christian concept... So he doesn't have to use the Christian Bible.

If you think Christians invented prayer, you are sorely mistaken.


2. The Bible states that god will answer prayers.

"This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him" (1 John 5:14-15).


3. If your rationalization is that god doesn't have to prove himself, and thus that any tests will prove failing results (i.e. god won't answer those prayers because he knows it's a test) then you've just sent the "prayer hypothesis" into the realm of utter unsubstantiated bullshit... which is precisely the point!

Anyone can invent wacky things with that convenient excuse. Here:

"When I pray to Mustafa, the undetectable Lion Spirit that lives in the sky, he grants my wishes. However Mustafa is so wise that he knows when he's being tested and will not grant them then. Mustafa told me Jesus is a fucking lie." Weeeeee!

1. Prayer isn't a solely Christian concept... So he doesn't have to use the Christian Bible.

If you think Christians invented prayer, you are sorely mistaken.


2. The Bible states that god will answer prayers.

"This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him" (1 John 5:14-15).


3. If your rationalization is that god doesn't have to prove himself, and thus that any tests will prove failing results (i.e. god won't answer those prayers because he knows it's a test) then you've just sent the "prayer hypothesis" into the realm of utter unsubstantiated bullshit... which is precisely the point!

Anyone can invent wacky things with that convenient excuse. Here:

"When I pray to Mustafa, the undetectable Lion Spirit that lives in the sky, he grants my wishes. However Mustafa is so wise that he knows when he's being tested and will not grant them then. Mustafa told me Jesus is a fucking lie." Weeeeee!

Haha yeah i know its not only christian, i just assumed he was talking about christian prayer because at the start of the video he said "im going to assume your a christian" then went on to use a christian website as a source and an "internet christian" view of prayer.

Silly me! I must have been wrong.

Im not defending either side; personally i think prayer is bullshit but thats just my oppinion.

I really thought he should have used something from the bible to make his argument stronger, that is my argument i.e. the passage you have quoted.

If you feel that yes, no and wait are unfair assumptions about how God answers prayer, feel free to offer a fourth possibility that undoes the logic presented in the video......

You see, here is the key word: logic. Like I said earlier, an infinite all-powerful God cannot be rationalized by the finite human mind, and thus by extension, nor can the power of prayer.

Yes/No/Wait is a fallacious presupposition. God is and always will be mysterious. Here is a valid argument as to why God is not bound to this criteria:

---------------

Premise 1 - God is infinitely all-powerful
Premise 2 - Since God is infinite, He is not bound by any limitations.
Premise 3 - A set criteria for answering prayers is a limitation to God's power.

Conclusion - God is not bound by "Yes/No/Wait" criteria, because He would cease to be God.

---------------

Now, I know precisely what you are going to say: "But you just said God cannot be rationalized". This proves my point. I can challenge his argument in much the same way, fighting fire with fire. But who is right? Both of our arguments are logically sound, but we can't both be right because they contradict one another. This is exactly what I mean when I say God cannot measured with science or logic.

A fourth possibility? We are talking about an infinite God! Of course there's a 4th possibility, and a 5th one, and a 1000th one, and so on.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I need money for a new car because my other car was totaled. I spot a top-of-the-line car at the dealership that I think would be perfect for me. It has great gas mileage, an awesome stereo system with an iPod dock, and a load of other useful features and luxuries that I could definitely put to use. This particular car will cost me $40000.

Now, let's say I pray to God and tell Him my entire dilemma and ask Him for the $40000 to buy this new car. After a few days I get a check in the mail for $30000. This is not enough to purchase the car I had my eyes on, but I am thankful anyhow. I go back to the dealership and find a lower end car and decide to buy it. It has only features that I actually need, no luxuries or the fantastic stereo, but it solves my problem.

-------------------

This is probably not the best example in the world, but you should see my point. Things like this happen when we pray to God, there is no way to predict the outcome. In this example He did not give you what you specifically asked for, but it solves your problem, and now you are no longer lacking a car.

How can this be within Yes/No/Wait criteria? I did not get what I specifically asked for (the higher end car), so it wasn't "Yes". However, God DID solve my problem when I asked Him to, so it was not a "No" either. It only took a few days, so I wouldn't consider "Wait" a possibility.

While we are on the topic of "Wait", let me take a moment to explain the "Wait" response.

"Wait" is the real optical illusion here. It is basically another variation of saying "Yes", so if you are going to apply criteria to how God answers prayers, you are really only left with two options, "Yes" and "No". However long it takes God to answer a prayer is irrelevant. If you are resorting to logic, you must agree with me in that the only two choices are that He will either answer it or He won't.

In my new car example, as I already pointed out, neither "Yes" nor "No" were responses because my problem was solved even though I did not get what I asked for.

You can't underestimate God, in fact it is impossible to overestimate Him!



Prayer is a christian concept so you use the bible as a source, im not going to deny that "yes, no and wait" is the logical rationalization for prayer, im just asking is that really what the bible says.

No, "Yes/no/wait" is a non-Biblical teaching.

You might not like it but if your dealing with a christian phoenomenon when your taking the christian perspective is must be derived from christian scriptures, whether id be the apocraphers the gnostic gospels the scriptures of the essenes or the bible this is the evidence the video lacks.

"Yes, no and wait" are not verified with the valid source , so it is a fallacious argument.

End of story.
Agreed. See BrokeProphet? killallthewhiteman is not even a Christian and even he agrees that this is nonsense!

He used the opinion of man as the basis of his argument.

Yes! Because there are absolutely no differing views of the Bible. Every so-called Christian in the world agrees on every single issue concerning the Bible, since they can read the same exact book.

Oh wait, no they fucking don't. Not only are they countless different translations, but there are countless different ways people interpret what the Bible says. Quoting the Bible would be utterly meaningless here.

At the end of the day the point is this:

The video stipulates/assumes a god formulation that can be tested and attacks the idea of prayer based on that. If god doesn't work like that, and instead cannot be tested as you claim, then you've just sent the concept of prayer into the realm of unsubstantiated bullshit. This doesn't help prayer.


Logic and science both have these boundaries, in that they cannot measure anything outside the physical materialistic universe we live in.What boundaries? You would first have to prove that there is something outside the physical materialistic universe we live in for that to be an actual boundary wouldn't you? Get on that.

^^

The thing is with people like brokeprophet is they will never give any leeway unless you "refute them with your outstanding and overwhelming logic and verifiable evidence" in other words - agree with him.

You just have to realize when the media monkey's and their junkie junkies invite you to their plastic pantomime; throw their invites away.

To him i am just another nutjob to attack because i am also engaged in spiritual consciousness or at least keep an open mind to the validity of some spiritual knowledge on a case by case basis rather than stereotype all of the principals as fallacious and the followers of those principals as zealots with no minds.

This is why in my honest opinion i don't see much virtue between Atheist- Believer debate or debate between materially conscious intellectually conscious and spiritually conscious people because it has no positive result.

Really this forum is for discussion between spiritually conscious people; its in the name if you dont believe in God how can your God beat the shit out of anyone?

That being said on a personal note i dont believe in prayer. Here is the one major beef i have with christian prayer and in a sense christianity in general.

When christian's pray they are sinning.

They pray for material, they pray for sense gratification. The material world is by definition suffering, look at history there was always suffering and their always will be because in this world many choose to be in the absence of God. God granted us our choice for free will because he loves us, you dont force someone to love you because that is rape. So you have to ask if God is spiritual and we defy God, how does that free will manifest itself?

The material world!

So really praying for anything material is detracting from God and causing you do be in spiritual absence from God.

Just look around in an age of kali yuga and increasing technology people are forgetting about God, and many Christians are still under the illusion of Maya because it is so powerful. The material world is essentially the polar opposite of the spiritual world; but we are marginally potent beings who are both spiritual and material because we have this material body but also we have our spiritual soul.

Its not so much the idea of prayer itself (although i have several quarrels with "God's will on earth" in terms of it actually manifesting itself rather than it being a will we follow, rather than god acting upon). Remember if God grants us our wish for free will because he loves and respects us then why would he deny us that by interfering in our life? Of course he loves us and wants us to go back to him, and when we choose that path and accept him then he will come back into our lives; because its mutual agreement.

Just look at the prodical son, that parable is basically a metaphor for everything i just said; the father respects his son's decision to leave; but when he returns they celebrate and he embraces him because he loves him for who he is not what hes done, similarly that is what we should emulate towards others.

Its the selfish contents of the prayer i have the problem with.

In my opinion if the Apocraphers and Essenic scriptures werent destroyed many more Christians would come to this realization (some of them are still around but naturally most Christians dismiss them as illegitimate mythology- ironic huh.).

P.S if you could elaborate on the actual principals of christian prayer that would be good.

P.S Rust i would argue consciousness is innately spiritual; it cannot be objectified and is non-transferable - why do you think the bible has so many translation and interpretation issues?

We cant always understand the context because we cant always understand their consciousness.

Yes! Because there are absolutely no differing views of the Bible. Every so-called Christian in the world agrees on every single issue concerning the Bible, since they can read the same exact book.

Oh wait, no they fucking don't. Not only are they countless different translations, but there are countless different ways people interpret what the Bible says. Quoting the Bible would be utterly meaningless here.

At the end of the day the point is this:

The video stipulates/assumes a god formulation that can be tested and attacks the idea of prayer based on that. If god doesn't work like that, and instead cannot be tested as you claim, then you've just sent the concept of prayer into the realm of unsubstantiated bullshit. This doesn't help prayer.

I am aware that there are countless different translations of the same Bible, but the Bible today does not have significant differences to the original texts of which it was composed. Now I'm not asserting that the Bible remains COMPLETELY unchanged, don't get me wrong here. I have lots of different Bibles, and the translations really do not make that much of a difference.

Here is why, I compared the Gospel of Matthew in the New American bible to the New Century Version bible. If you look closely at the beginning where it describes John the Baptist (Chapter 3), you will see what I am talking about. In the New American version, John the Baptist eats grasshoppers and wild honey. But in the New Century version (and a few other Bibles), looking at the same passage, John eats locusts and wild honey (some bibles translate this as manna).

As you can see, the translations make little to no difference to the actual message behind the Bible. Locusts and grasshoppers are the same thing, so what? Jesus' teachings were not affected by the translations either. Yes, the phrasing of the sentences He spoke can vary Bible to Bible, but the underlying message remains unaltered.

That being said, it would not be pointless to quote the Bible. Different opinions on the Bible do not change what the Bible says. For instance, some Christians support homosexuality, others believe it is sin, but regardless, the Bible still says in Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lie with a man as with a female, both shall be put to death, for they hath committed an abominable deed".

Whether or not homosexuality is a sin is another debate, I'm just making a point here about Christian opinions v.s. the actual Bible.

What boundaries? You would first have to prove that there is something outside the physical materialistic universe we live in for that to be an actual boundary wouldn't you? Get on that.
I can't, so what? There is a lot circumstantial evidence for it, but again, it doesn't necessarily prove the supernatural is real. In the same way, you cannot prove the physical universe is all there is. This is why there are boundaries to what logic and science can answer.

We can argue back and forth about the supernatural, but there is never going to be a winning side to any debate concerning the unknown.

That being said, it would not be pointless to quote the Bible. Different opinions on the Bible do not change what the Bible says. For instance, some Christians support homosexuality, others believe it is sin, but regardless, the Bible still says in Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lie with a man as with a female, both shall be put to death, for they hath committed an abominable deed".

Whether or not homosexuality is a sin is another debate, I'm just making a point here about Christian opinions v.s. the actual Bible.

The point is precisely that we don't have an objective way of determining the important bit of information, which is what the Bible meant. We can all quote the Bible saying "If a man lie with a man as with a female, both shall be put to death, for they hath committed an abominable deed", but unless you can objectively determine that means Jesus/God would be against gay marriage or not, it doesn't prove anything.

Similarly, you can quote the Bible regarding prayer but you can still find conflicting interpretations of what that means (i.e. if it means he will answer prayer not matter what, if it means he can be tested, etc.).

The fundamental point, which you didn't deal with, is that if prayer can be tested, it fails miserably, and it can't be tested, then it enters the realm of unsubstantiated bullshit.



I can't, so what?

So then you cannot say they are actual boundaries which was your claim!

You said Science had these boundaries. What boundaries? Boundaries that separate the material from that which you haven't even proven exists? It seems to me you have to first prove that the supernatural exists and then claim Science is missing out.


There is a lot substantial evidence for it, but again, it doesn't necessarily prove the supernatural is real.

Really? Provide some. You can create a new thread if you want.

In the same way, you cannot prove the physical universe is all there is.

Hence why I don't claim that it is, nor do I claim there are (or aren't) boundaries.

^^ sorry mate but i beg to differ.

The bible has been spiritually raped by politicization starting with emperor Constantine.

This man killed his brothers so that he could be the sole ruler of rome, then politicized Christianity by taking all of the gnostic teachings out of the gospel aswell as any other teachings that would prevent him controlling his empire as best he could.

During the counsel of nicea all holy men who disagreed with these edits were put do death just like all the citizens of rome.

Is this a man filled with the holy spirit?

A man spiritually entitled to enact God's will?

When a christian call's these edit's and disinformation God's will you are saying emperor Constantine was a man working under the inspiration of God, yet he put do death his brothers, holy men and his citizens aswell as the countries he invaded?

Christianity was better off persecuted.

Not to mention the vatacan keeps many holy scriptures secret, dismisses the dead sea scrolls ( the scriptures of the essenes the sect of Jew's jesus belong to who were non-violent and vegetarian) and besides all this before the edits 17 years of jesus life where missing.

Why do you think everyone in the new testament new jesus so well? because he was the son of God?

No! because he had made a reputation in the 17 years not mentioned in the bible (and in that time he studied vedic spirituality in india where much of the gnostic teachings are derived). So when jesus came up to people and said leave all of your material possesions behind and come with me; you have to understand the context a context missing from the bible.

Another major beef with Christianity off my list :p

The point is precisely that we don't have an objective way of determining the important bit of information, which is what the Bible meant. We can all quote the Bible saying "If a man lie with a man as with a female, both shall be put to death, for they hath committed an abominable deed", but unless you can objectively determine that means Jesus/God would be against gay marriage or not, it doesn't prove anything.
In the case of Leviticus 20:13, it is literally saying "A man must not have sex with another man", and must be taken at face value. There is no other way to interpret it, can you honestly think of any other meaning this scripture has?


Similarly, you can quote the Bible regarding prayer but you can still find conflicting interpretations of what that means (i.e. if it means he will answer prayer not matter what, if it means he can be tested, etc.).
Well, let's see what the Bible has to say and we will go from there....

First of all, Deuteronomy 6:16 forbids testing the Lord. It says "Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah." This scripture was later quoted by Jesus in Matthew 4:7, in which He said "Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.". Jesus said this as a response when Satan told him to prove He was the Son of God by jumping off the temple, so we know that this scripture literally means God cannot be tested.

As for prayer, here are some examples of scripture that clearly show God does not promise to answer all prayers:
---------
*Remember there is an obedience component to prayer, and is shown here:
Job 22:27: “You will pray to Him, He will hear you, and you will fulfill your vows.”

There is also “Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart” (Ps 37:4).

Psalm 66:18 says, “If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened.”
Proverbs 28:9: “If anyone turns a deaf ear to the law, even his prayers are detestable.”
Proverbs 15:8 and 15:29 say that “The Lord detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but the prayer of the upright pleases Him” and “The Lord is far from the wicked but hears the prayers of the righteous.”
-----------

We can debate about the interpretation of these if you want.

The fundamental point, which you didn't deal with, is that if prayer can be tested, it fails miserably, and it can't be tested, then it enters the realm of unsubstantiated bullshit.
OK, let me get this straight - if I have this right your assertion is this:

Point 1. If God can be tested by man, prayer is ineffective.
Point 2. If God cannot be tested, prayer enters the realm of unsubstantiated nonsense.

Point 1 makes perfect sense, I'm totally agreed with you here. Point 2 is where things get tricky, because now we are arguing over matters of faith. The effectiveness of prayer cannot be scientifically or logically established. This just goes to show why logic and science have boundaries, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier.


So then you cannot say they are actual boundaries which was your claim!

You said Science had these boundaries. What boundaries? Boundaries that separate the material from that which you haven't even proven exists? It seems to me you have to first prove that the supernatural exists and then claim Science is missing out.
By boundaries, I am referring to logic and science being unable to measure matters of faith. It is by faith that the claim of the supernatural was made. Do you agree with this? Disagree?



Really? Provide some. You can create a new thread if you want.
I meant "circumstantial evidence", I apologize...I selected the wrong word in my previous post. An example would be that the universe is governed by a self-sustaining system of nature that supports life (i.e. laws of gravity, food chain, etc.). I'm not asserting that supernatural definitely exists, I'm asserting that it's existence cannot be disproven. Empirical evidence can only show what is or is not true in the physical world. The supernatural is beyond what can be tested with the five senses. THIS is my argument.



Hence why I don't claim that it is, nor do I claim there are (or aren't) boundaries.
Then what do you claim in regards to the supernatural? If you are asserting prayer and God's existence are both imaginary, one would naturally assume you are making the claim that the supernatural is not real.

In the case of Leviticus 20:13, it is literally saying "A man must not have sex with another man", and must be taken at face value. There is no other way to interpret it, can you honestly think of any other meaning this scripture has?

You are wrong. Everything in the bible is said in a spiritual context, not a literal context.

Really the old testament is for Jew's not christian's but back to my orignal point.

"A man must not lie with another man is he does a female". Key world "Lie".

Lie can mean several things but mainly it means two things (in a literal sense).

A) Untruthfulness
B) A position relative to something.

Im guessing your going with B)

There is nothing sexual about a man being in a position relative to a female, unless that position is his penis in her vagina which it does NOT state. To assume what you are assuming is to assume men only sleep in a position relative to females which requires further evidence either historical evidence of Jewish culture in terms of sex, or further elaborating passages.

To interpret this a sexual is to bring it out of a literal context, something you have not admitted to.

ALL of these means jack shit anyway because you're a christian not a fucking Jew.

Now, let's say I pray to God and tell Him my entire dilemma and ask Him for the $40000 to buy this new car. After a few days I get a check in the mail for $30000.

Awesome, I am going to say that this is a VALID fourth way. I agree to that. So now we have four, right?

How does this undo his argument?

The fact is, his argument DOES NOT REQUIRE, only three ways God can answer prayer. His argument DOES NOT REQUIRE scripture

If you think up that fifth, sixth, all the way to 1000th one and beyond, we will add it, and apply it to how the jug of milk answers prayer, and the argument still holds true. In fact, it IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT!!!!! You can find any number of books that talk about any number of ways prayers are answered, and his argument still holds true, so long as it is arbitrary enough to be applied to something as silly as a Jug of Milk.

He correctly argues in his video that prayer is arbitrary. The jug of milk is used only to further illustrate how arbitrary it is. A similar argument is made in the Flying spaghetti monster, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

This video and ITS VALID STRUCTRURE AND POINTS, are just an extrapolation from these classic arguments.

I am going to go ahead, and use your logic, to determine what ever arbitrary thing needs to be determined about the jug of milk, so that it can still answer prayer. Indeed after this, you will see why and how the jug of milk, doesn't have a set number of ways it can answer prayers either. (this is the point of his video)

Premise 1 - God is infinitely all-powerful
Premise 2 - Since God is infinite, He is not bound by any limitations.
Premise 3 - A set criteria for answering prayers is a limitation to God's power.

Conclusion - God is not bound by "Yes/No/Wait" criteria, because He would cease to be God..

So what this does is basically set it up in a logical fashion, that God has no criteria when answering prayer, and thus, this tool on youtube's silly little argument doesn't apply, correct?

I am about to show you basically what the guy in the video did when illustrating how arbitrary prayer is.......

You ready? Here goes......

Premise 1 - The jug of milk is infinitely all-powerful
Premise 2 - Since jug of milk is infinite, He is not bound by any limitations.
Premise 3 - A set criteria for answering prayers is a limitation to jug of milk's power.

Conclusion - jug of milk is not bound by "Yes/No/Wait" criteria, because He would cease to be jug of milk.

-----------

Try it for yourself. Replace jug of milk with Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or you can even replace it with "Highly Cerebral and Spiritually Awakened Fistful of Baboon Shit" and it is STILL every bit as correct and logical as yours.

Assuming a person accepts your premise without requiring evidence. Show me yours, and I will show you mine ;)

So now, I too have a syllogism, involving my Jug of Milk, that means there is no criteria for him to answer prayer, either. But answer it he does, I assure you of that. Why just pray to him, and see for yourself.

-----------

You are too caught up on the lack of scriptures, and three criteria to realize that his argument does not depend upon these things, and cannot be undone by them.

This is also what I have been saying since my very first post.

He would cease to be jug of milk.


Does the jug of milk have a penis?

You are wrong. Everything in the bible is said in a spiritual context, not a literal context.
Yes I agree. But the book of Leviticus is one of the first five books of the Bible which make up the Law of Moses (the Jewish Torah). The Bible is spiritual in nature, but it still contains a code of conduct that humans are expected to obey.

Really the old testament is for Jew's not christian's but back to my orignal point.
Many of the Old Testament laws still apply to Christians. Jesus' teachings were based on the writings of the old testament, and He even said to "obey the commandments" (Ten commandments).

"A man must not lie with another man is he does a female". Key world "Lie".

Lie can mean several things but mainly it means two things (in a literal sense).

A) Untruthfulness
B) A position relative to something.

Im guessing your going with B)
There is nothing sexual about a man being in a position relative to a female, unless that position is his penis in her vagina which it does NOT state. To assume what you are assuming is to assume men only sleep in a position relative to females which requires further evidence either historical evidence of Jewish culture in terms of sex, or further elaborating passages.

To interpret this a sexual is to bring it out of a literal context, something you have not admitted to.

killallthewhiteman, the only way to reach any other interpretation of Lev. 20:13 is to take this verse out of context. Verses 10 through 21 of Leviticus Chapter 20 refer to sexuality.

In the case of Leviticus 20:13, it is literally saying "A man must not have sex with another man", and must be taken at face value. There is no other way to interpret it, can you honestly think of any other meaning this scripture has?

There are plenty of ways to intepret it, actually.

What does the Bible mean by "lay"? Does snuggling count? Does oral sex count? Does anal sex count? Does kissing count? It specifically mentions "as one does with a woman". Does that mean if someone lays with a man in a different way that he lays with a woman, it's okay?

Our lack of imaginations does not show an impossibility, neither does you thinking these interpreations are ridiculous.


We can debate about the interpretation of these if you want.

Why would I do that? Debating these will get us nowhere. I don't care what the bible says; it is neither important in my life, nor important in this argument. Like I already said, the video assumes prayer can be tested and works from that assumption. If you claim that it cannot be tested (be it because you pulled it out of your ass or because God said so, or what hever you) then if that were true prayer would be sent to the realm of unsubstantiated bullshit.


Point 2 is where things get tricky, because now we are arguing over matters of faith. The effectiveness of prayer cannot be scientifically or logically established. This just goes to show why logic and science have boundaries, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier.

It is preciesly because prayer cannot be established logically that it's unsubstantiated nonsense. Logic deals with what is logical - with what makes sense.

By boundaries, I am referring to logic and science being unable to measure matters of faith. It is by faith that the claim of the supernatural was made. Do you agree with this? Disagree?

No, you said Science couldn't measure something. My point is you have to prove that something exists to begin with and then claim Science cannot measure it, not the other way around.

I meant "circumstantial evidence", I apologize...I selected the wrong word in my previous post. An example would be that the universe is governed by a self-sustaining system of nature that supports life (i.e. laws of gravity, food chain, etc.). I'm not asserting that supernatural definitely exists, I'm asserting that it's existence cannot be disproven. Empirical evidence can only show what is or is not true in the physical world. The supernatural is beyond what can be tested with the five senses. THIS is my argument.

I know what your arugment is, the problem is you're skipping a very important step. You are attrubting things to the supernatural (i.e. it is beyiond can be tested by Science) and you haven't even shown that it exists!


Then what do you claim in regards to the supernatural? If you are asserting prayer and God's existence are both imaginary, one would naturally assume you are making the claim that the supernatural is not real.

I haven't claim that prayer and god are imaginary, nor does my position have anything to do with the topic at hand. The topic at hand is this:

Either prayer can be tested, which would mean it has failed miserably in pretty much all tests, or it cannot which means it's unsubstantiated nonsense.

The origin of prayer: Man cried out and he was answered.

That's all there is to it. People have always done it; theist or not. It makes no difference what you believe. When you just succumb to what's inside of you and feel the depth of your pain, you cry out, and you are ALWAYS answered. There is not a 'yes' 'no' or a 'wait' response. Feel the needs of your soul and how you have ultimately failed to even begin satisfying them and a phenomenon has occurred with perfect attendance to the humble and broken heart crying for relief.

The man who prays for wealth gets no response, nor does the man praying for luck, women, charm, personality, success, or anything of the sort. In fact, one cannot pray for money, luck, or anything other than relief itself. Prayer, at its very essence, is a cry from the human soul to anything listening. It is born of the humility found when one admits their ignorance and need. In such a state of humble despair, the pure compassion of the Master is moved to action: man is finally willing to accept the help available to him, and thus it is shown and made known to the man to have always been there waiting for that one moment of complete surrender. Man has always wanted to understand prayer...we know what led us to it. We know what happened afterward. We can't force it to happen again. How could we? After the response we have received, we will never again face the kind of despair that first moved us to cry with such absolute abandon. We know that God guides us now, protects us, loves us, cares about us, and will never abandon us. All that stood in the way of God was our decision to reject his help. Indeed, Christ Jesus is Lord, for God IS Help.

There are plenty of ways to intepret it, actually.

What does the Bible mean by "lay"? Does snuggling count? Does oral sex count? Does anal sex count? Does kissing count? It specifically mentions "as one does with a woman". Does that mean if someone lays with a man in a different way that he lays with a woman, it's okay?

Our lack of imaginations does not show an impossibility, neither does you thinking these interpreations are ridiculous.
As I said to killallthewhiteman, the only way to reach any other interpretation of Lev. 20:13 is to take this verse out of context. Verses 10 through 21 of Leviticus Chapter 20 refer to sexuality in general. If you need to see this for yourself, click here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev%2020:10-21&version=31).

The word "lay" is used in the context of scripture regarding sexuality, so yes it would be logically consistent to apply this passage to oral/anal sex (which a man can also do with a female). If you have oral or anal sex even today, you would not be considered a virgin....so oral and anal sex still falls within the definition of "lay".

As for snuggling/kissing, who knows? It was common during that era for brothers (or even stangers) to kiss each other (but it was not sexual in nature, that is, they weren't making out just a kiss on the cheek as a form of greeting).



No, you said Science couldn't measure something. My point is you have to prove that something exists to begin with and then claim Science cannot measure it, not the other way around.

Please elaborate on this.

I don't not need to show that the supernatural exists to claim that it cannot be scientifically measured. Tell me how science can be used to measure something if we do not know it exists.


I know what your arugment is, the problem is you're skipping a very important step. You are attrubting things to the supernatural (i.e. it is beyiond can be tested by Science) and you haven't even shown that it exists!
If you can show me why I need to prove the supernatural exists in order to claim it cannot be measured, then we'll talk.

As I said to killallthewhiteman, the only way to reach any other interpretation of Lev. 20:13 is to take this verse out of context. Verses 10 through 21 of Leviticus Chapter 20 refer to sexuality in general. If you need to see this for yourself, click here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lev%2020:10-21&version=31).

Actually, you refute that assertion (i.e. "the only way to reach any other interpretation of Lev. 20:13 is to take this verse out of context.") in the very next paragraph when you say "As for snuggling/kissing, who knows?"! You are already admitting that a large part of the meaning of the Bible is unknown. That along proves my point: We can reach multiple different interpretations.



Please elaborate on this.

I don't not need to show that the supernatural exists to claim that it cannot be scientifically measured. Tell me how science can be used to measure something if we do not know it exists
Sorry but shifting the burden of proof here is not going to work. You made the initial claim. You claimed:

"Logic and science both have these boundaries, in that they cannot measure anything outside the physical materialistic universe we live in."

Prove it.


If you can show me why I need to prove the supernatural exists in order to claim it cannot be measured, then we'll talk.Well you can claim it. Sure. Whether you can prove it or not is another story. Prove it.

----

All of the above, however, is unimportant./ The important part of the discussion - the part which directly relates to the OP - is the part you didn't' reply to (which I assume means you concede): Either the video refuted prayer or it sent it to the realms of unsubstantiated nonsense. Both are good "attacks" on prayer.

Actually, you refute that assertion (i.e. "the only way to reach any other interpretation of Lev. 20:13 is to take this verse out of context.") in the very next paragraph when you say "As for snuggling/kissing, who knows?"!
Not necessarily, because snuggling/kissing have nothing to do with sexuality in themselves. The passage refers to homosexuality. I would have to say that while kissing or snuggling with a guy may seem wrong, you are not automatically guilty of forbidden sex. Whether or not you have the sex is up to you, and that is the determining factor.

I have yet to find anything in the Bible that covers two guys snuggling and kissing, but I'm fairly confident that Leviticus 20:13 could extend to forbid that behavior as well, but that solely my opinion.

Regardless, it DOES forbid sexuality between males. I was saying that any interpretation of this passage (other than sexuality) would not make any sense, because that whole section (verses 10 through 21) of chapter 20 refers to sexual morality.

You are already admitting that a large part of the meaning of the Bible is unknown. That along proves my point: We can reach multiple different interpretations.
But this depends on a variety of factors. First we have to consider the passage in question, whether or not the author intended for the reader to interpret the text a certain way, and rule out all of the interpretations that do not make sense given the context of the verse (like I did with the homosexuality passage).



Sorry but shifting the burden of proof here is not going to work. You made the initial claim. You claimed:

"Logic and science both have these boundaries, in that they cannot measure anything outside the physical materialistic universe we live in."

Prove it.

Let me show you why it cannot be done, and furthermore why I do not to prove it to make such an assertion.

Here are three scenarios:

Scenario 1: The supernatural does not exist

If this is the case, it cannot be measured with science.

Scenario 2: The existence of the supernatural will always be a mystery.

If this is the case, it cannot be measured with science.

Scenario 3: The supernatural does exist.

If this is the case, it STILL cannot be measured with science.



Are you starting to see a pattern here? Even if man could somehow prove the supernatural exists, it could not be done scientifically or logically. Again, science cannot measure something outside the confines of nature, nor cannot it measure something if WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE THIS SOMETHING EXISTS.

But since discussion is stuck in this "loop", I guess I'm going to have to try, because as you correctly assumed the burden of proof is on me. Let's face it, the discussion is inevitably going to fall into the creation/evolution debate since it is the only way to show the supernatural. It cannot be done by arguing back and forth about prayer because there is always the lingering argument "Well that could also be just a concidence".

I believe that the big bang theory is not scientifically sound.

Here is a logically and scientifically consistent explanation for the Big Bang theory.

If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, where did it come from? It had to have originated from somewhere because matter is not eternal, nor can it "just appear". There had to be an instance where the supernatural was invoked for this explosion to have occurred.

I prefer this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH0rFZIqo8A&feature=channel

Not necessarily, because snuggling/kissing have nothing to do with sexuality in themselves. The passage refers to homosexuality. I would have to say that while kissing or snuggling with a guy may seem wrong, you are not automatically guilty of forbidden sex. Whether or not you have the sex is up to you, and that is the determining factor.

It's your opinion, that snuggling and kissing have nothing to do with sexuality. Many people differ. My point exactly.

I have yet to find anything in the Bible that covers two guys snuggling and kissing, but I'm fairly confident that Leviticus 20:13 could extend to forbid that behavior as well, but that solely my opinion.

Exactly! You just made my point! The Bible can be interpreted to mean various things. Your own example of a supposedly concrete verse can have, according to your own admission, at least two different interpretations: One extending to two guys snuggling and kissing and another one not.

But this depends on a variety of factors. First we have to consider the passage in question, whether or not the author intended for the reader to interpret the text a certain way, and rule out all of the interpretations that do not make sense given the context of the verse (like I did with the homosexuality passage).

Neither of which refute what I said. I didn't claim it couldn't depend on a variety of factors. I said multiple interpretations given a supposedly "literal" textual reading, can arise. Your own example of a biblical verse shows they can.

Let me show you why it cannot be done, and furthermore why I do not to prove it to make such an assertion.


You showed nothing. You just repeatedly claimed it couldn't. I know your claim, I want you to prove it.


Let's face it, the discussion is inevitably going to fall into the creation/evolution debate since it is the only way to show the supernatural. It cannot be done by arguing back and forth about prayer because there is always the lingering argument "Well that could also be just a concidence".

Huh?

1. Why is the discussion inevitably fall into that? The discussion is over:

"The important part of the discussion - the part which directly relates to the OP - is the part you didn't' reply to (which I assume means you concede): Either the video refuted prayer or it sent it to the realms of unsubstantiated nonsense. Both are good "attacks" on prayer."


2. You're claiming the supernatural can be shown through the "creation/evolution debate", but not through Science?


If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, where did it come from? It had to have originated from somewhere because matter is not eternal, nor can it "just appear". There had to be an instance where the supernatural was invoked for this explosion to have occurred.

1. Where are you getting the idea that matter cannot be created nor destroyed? The law of conservation of matter? Well that's useless in the early stages of the Big Bang. The laws that we have now, apply to universes in a state equal or similar to the state we are now. Scientists don't claim that they apply in the early stages of the Big Bang.

2. Scientists don't claim the Big Bang is the beginning of everything. There are scientific cosmogonical hypotheses.


-----------------

All of the above, however, is unimportant. The important part of the discussion - the part which directly relates to the OP - is the part you didn't' reply to (which I assume means you concede): Either the video refuted prayer or it sent it to the realms of unsubstantiated nonsense. Both are good "attacks" on prayer.

1. Multi quote
2. Unrefutable scientific knowledge and logic
3.???
4 Profit!!!

Copy paste into all wacky religious zealots threads.

Bahh it's a pretty sound in terms of logic. However its logos Vs pathos so in my opinion its like comparing apples to kiwis.