If God exists, does he baffle himself?

[SMOGZINN]

These statements show that you have virtually no understanding of how Christians view prayer as it relates to hard work. Prayer and hard work are not mutually exclusive.

To us, prayer and hard work go hand and hand -- we believe God blesses efforts (work put in), meaning that whatever we do is helped along by God when we request help.

My goodness, this is Christianity 101.

Then god blesses my, and millions or others, prayerless efforts just as much.
And what you say simple is not true. Some might give lip service to that idea, but most christians believe that prayer, by itself, brings about change.

 

[Retro Rob]

Then god blesses my, and millions or others, prayerless efforts just as much.

Sure -- I never said that can't happen, either.

And what you say simple is not true. Some might give lip service to that idea, but most christians believe that prayer, by itself, brings about change.

You can't say what I'm saying isn't true, and then say "most believe" that prayer by itself brings about change. What I say has plenty of truth with it, unless you're speaking for 2+ billion people.

EDIT: Christians believe a mixture of both. When they are not in a position to literally help (like, if someone lives 5,000 miles away), then prayer alone can substitute as a means of motivating others to help, maybe. Of course, that's the only choice they would have.

 

[Caravaggio]

You always have a postscript running saying Neil de Grasse Tyson is a theist like you.
He is not. Just read his wiki entry. The bit on spirituality and God. He is a sceptical agnostic who believes that the atheist Dawkins is doing good work for science.
If you cite people as your supporters it might be best to check your facts first.

Actually, 93% of American members of the Academy of Sciences are either atheists or agnostics, in the UK, the figure is about 97%, for the equivalent, 'Fellow of the Royal Society' (science).

Quoting bogus figures is poor science.

 

[Retro Rob]

You always have a postscript running saying Neil de Grasse Tyson is a theist like you.

Exactly where in that quote is it said that NDT is a "theist like me"?

If you cite people as your supporters it might be best to check your facts first.

Actually, 93% of American members of the Academy of Sciences are either atheists or agnostics, in the UK, the figure is about 97%, for the equivalent, 'Fellow of the Royal Society' (science).

Actually, in the not too distant past, nearly all scientists held that Continents didn't drift, but did that change the fact they DO drift?

Sorry to disappoint you, but truth isn't determined by popular opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Caravaggio: Always a pleasure to read your work. But you are being rather hard on the doubters here. 'Unconscious knowledge' is necessarily hard to interrogate.

M: hadn't intended to be too hard on anybody. I was pleased that Moonbogg liked what I said. I agree that unconscious knowledge is hard but I think it's real. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, is, I think, one way that truth gets expressed.

C: As a non-believer the most irritating assumption I have to deal with is the belief, by believers, that I am a shoddy moral relativist, not properly nailed-down, should a storm flap the awning.
My morality is actually pretty solid and of the "Protestant ethic" (work hard, help the weak, fight the bully)variety. In earlier exchanges we have agreed about the nature of, and need for, goodness. Likewise honesty. Love, too, yep I can go with that.

My question is this, is the God you believe in, reducible to the values I believe in? In other words, am I "godly" in your terms?

M: The problem, it seems to me, is that we can't accept how Godly we are. I think Jesus died on the cross in order to tell us. He gave his life so we might awaken. We have all been forgiven, but we don't all believe it.

C: If your answer is "yes" and I so hope it is, then your God has little in common with a vengeful Yahweh or Allah, it seems? ( I am thinking of the bossy God of Deuteronomy).
Is your God an interventionist, resurrecting, censorious, life-ever-after creator God of the Southern Baptist stripe or is he 'just love'?

M: it is only fitting I guess that a nobody like me would have just a nobody special God. Just love, as you say.

 

[Moonbeam]

SMOGZINN: Because he thinks that everyone already knows a god exists. That is not faith, that is blindness. He has let his fear blind him, not raise him up.

M: Not seeing any evidence for this I must say it sounds like you have a lot of faith too.

S: Having faith in god does not improve us, it deludes us. We are not helped by asking god for something, we are helped by hard work. Asking god for a favor never got anyone anywhere, but rolling up your sleeves and doing it yourself can.

M: I hear your assertions but I see no evidence. I have no idea how you can say faith has never gotten anybody anywhere. People have had faith for thousands of years. Surely it's done one or two people some good.

S: The key is, and somewhere inside you know this but are afraid to admit it, that there is no god. It is fear that holds you back. Let go of your fear and see that the human community is much greater than you ever imagined. We have done all this ourselves, with no need of a god.

M: Been there and done that. The greatness of the human community when it's great is great because it mirrors God.

Prayer is a way to remember God. I have heard the Sufis practice a kind of prayer that causes them to remember God with every heartbeat. That would really be something and I bet it changes how you are.

At any rate, I can see no reason why a person of faith couldn't as easily say that you're afraid to believe, you know, that you prefer not to know you are going to hell, or are there already?

 

[Caravaggio]

Exactly where in that quote is it said that NDT is a "theist like me"?

Fair enough. But you are a Christian and a theist, so why do end each of your posts with a quote from an agnostic who rejects the idea of a benevolent God?
Just wondering....

The data in the suffix you have selected is untestable and spurious. It clashes with what we know from the attitudes of America's elite scientists and similar studies elsewhere.

By recruiting NdG T as your regular 'side-kick' gives the impression that there is a congruence between your views and his. If not, why undermine each and every post by citing him?:whiste:
Furthermore, the quote you use is out of context. Any reasonable reader, looking at your posts for the first time, might assume that N dG T, supports the general drift of your ideas which appear above his quote.

At the most trivial level that conjunction is potentially misleading, at worst it is deliberately disingenuous.

Actually, in the not too distant past, nearly all scientists held that Continents didn't drift, but did that change the fact they DO drift?

Sorry to disappoint you, but truth isn't determined by popular opinion.

Where did I make such a claim?

In the context of the theory of continental drift (Ortelius, Wegener, Holmes), the scientific method lead paleo-geologists to look for evidence of the slow movement of the continents. They found it. The once-radical hypothesis is now accepted by the vast majority of earth scientists. The evidence is compelling. Those who reject the theory are no longer scientists.
Science is always confirming new hypotheses and rejecting old ones on the basis of evidence. That is what research does, it leads to new ideas. When the 'paradigm shifts' the show moves on (as Thomas Kuhn demonstrated). The only 'losers' are those who fail to budge in the face of overwhelming evidence.

These people are far more likely to be found in the community of formal religion, than in science. Just consider the pickle the Catholic Church got into over Galileo and Darwin. They waited 200 and 150 years before apologising.

Fundamentalists within Islam, creationism and Orthodox Judaism still deny these scientific truths, as we see, every other week, on these boards.

 

[Retro Rob]

Fair enough. But you are a Christian and a theist, so why do end each of your posts with a quote from an agnostic who rejects the idea of a benevolent God?
Just wondering....

I just like the quote, personally.

The data in the suffix you have selected is untestable and spurious. It clashes with what we know from the attitudes of America's elite scientists and similar studies elsewhere.

Well, I'm not the one who said it...you ought to shoot NDT an email telling him he's mistaken.

By recruiting NdG T as your regular 'side-kick' gives the impression that there is a congruence between your views and his.

If not, why undermine each and every post by citing him?:whiste:

You DO know what a signature is, don't you?

Furthermore, the quote you use is out of context. Any reasonable reader, looking at your posts for the first time, might assume that N dG T, supports the general drift of your ideas which appear above his quote.

Anyone with basic reading comprehension skills will clearly see that that quote doesn't at all convey the idea that Tyson himself believes in God.

At the most trivial level that conjunction is potentially misleading, at worst it is deliberately disingenuous.

You're lucky we're in the DC.

 

[Caravaggio]

I just like the quote

Even if it inverts your meaning, it seems.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann daruber muss man schweigen.

You're lucky we're in the DC.

I don't live in Washington.

 

[Dessicant]

Actually, I don't think it. I know it.

You have renounced Reason, so knowing things for you will be pure emotionalism and subjectivism. As it is for all deists. Hey, at least you're not alone!

 

[Moonbeam]

You have renounced Reason, so knowing things for you will be pure emotionalism and subjectivism. As it is for all deists. Hey, at least you're not alone!

It's normal to assume that if you don't know what knowing something means. For example, You would know that I was having you on if I told you that coffee tastes like blue cheese, assuming you had tasted both before. Knowing isn't emotional or subjective, it's experiential. And you can know things instinctively.