Two atheist arguments that cancel each other out.

[Equites Christi]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

I don't think we have a 'court'. It is more a loose anarchist collective, but not so organized as that.

Well I guess that's what I get for trying to be all polite and formal

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by Hokomai

The claim that prayer works when applied to sick people is a scientific claim. It predicts an outcome. Your point that prayer is not always answered does not alter this, as the claim is that, on average, over time, if we pray for sick people they will recover better, or suffer less. If not, why pray? And it is clear merely from reading CAF that this is exactly what many CAFers believe. It is a proposition that matter (peoples' bodies) can be and is changed by something that is not material (prayer and God). This can be tested. those have tried have not produced any positive replicable results. when you say it "Sounds silly from "outside" the Faith, I know, but it makes perfect sense from "inside", you should consider first the possibility of whether it sounds silly from outside because it is silly.

Hokomai:

I can relate a true occurrence that happened to my girl friend's sister, that my girl friend and I were a part of. On an evening when the sun had not fully gone down, she was walking on a road that happened to be intersected by a perpendicular street, that separated two churches. On the north side, a Catholic Church, on the south side, a Baptist Church. As they were walking, talking and not paying much attention to whatever was around them, the sister was hit by a car and thrown into lawn of the Catholic Church. Help arrived, and she was taken to an emergency room. She was in a coma.

She remained in that coma for a number of weeks until, one day, several of her attending doctors decided that they were going to pull the plugs and let her die. So, the mother was called. The mother called all of the relatives and friends who were to meet at the hospital. Most of them got there fairly quickly, but two were running late. So, they waited.

Shortly thereafter, the pastor of the Baptist Church, who was in the hospital doing his rounds, came across the family. They explained what was about to happen. He asked if he could go in a pray over her. They gave permission, and continued their prayerful wait.

About 45 minutes later, the Pastor came out of the room and told the mother - in front of all who were present - that her daughter was sitting up and wanted to see her. That girl is still alive and doing well. She was that close to being extinguished. Everyone present, attributed her life to all of their prayers and the prayers of the Pastor.

I suppose that they could have then strangled her to death, then prayed again to see if she would regain her health! I don't know, but somehow, it seems rather bazaar to require that such an event be repeated!

I don't know, but 13 - 15 people and a half dozen fine doctors, believe they saw an intervention, a miracle. Who are we to tell them that they are all wrong? Are they?

God bless,
jd

[mgoforth]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

No, I wouldn't see that as being reduced to a mere ''medical tool'', rather, as demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt, for the unbeliever at least, that the claim that you can ''ask in My Name, and it will be granted'' holds consistently.

As for the jumping through hoops, well, again no, because Jesus did say whatever you ask in His name, will be given.

No. Jesus said to ask with faith:

When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

“You unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed at that moment.

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?”

He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17: 14-20

Now, I understand that there could be qualifiers implied in that, in the sense that given the overall context of Jesus' message, asking for your neighbor to be struck down because he borrowed your mower and didn't return it would be ignored.

But how about good Catholic families like that of Madeleine McCann, who've had the whole world, including the Pope praying for the safe return of their daughter, who have Mass offered every day, and who, 5 years later, are still in anguish for their missing little girl.

I can't for the life of me see what lessons are being taught, or learned, from this families suffering and pain.

I would guess that the lesson He wants them to learn is faith. Faith that even if their daughter is not returned, it's somehow because He loves them all. This is what you refuse to admit...God is greater than you could ever aspire to be, and His judgments are perfect and will always be totally incomprehensible to you and all of us in this life. Faith is trusting God, whatever the outcome. You want to reduce God to an equation...something "provable". God is greater than your understanding or what you think He should do.

But to get back to your "medical tool" question, I can tell you that prayers made "out of curiosity" or to "prove" something will probably not be answered because they have no faith behind them.

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him. Matthew 27: 39-44

I'm sure you don't realize it, but your requests for proof would be insulting to God, because you have no faith. Faith is the prerequisite, whether you like it or not.

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by mgoforth

No. Jesus said to ask with faith:

I have no reason to think her parents, devout Catholics, and all their family, friends and global community in the Church itself, are not asking with faith.

I would guess that the lesson He wants them to learn is faith. Faith that even if their daughter is not returned, it's somehow because He loves them all.

Perhaps, but that loses me I'm afraid. What would you, or anyone else, say, if it turned out one of their family knew all along where she was, but said, I didn't help you, or tell you, for 5 years, and watched you go throught the most appalling guilt and anguish, because I was testing your faith. Now you've passed my test, here's your daughter back! Rightly, everyone would be outraged, and that person would get prison time!

This is what you refuse to admit...God is greater than you could ever aspire to be, and His judgments are perfect and will always be totally incomprehensible to you and all of us in this life. Faith is trusting God, whatever the outcome. You want to reduce God to an equation...something "provable". God is greater than your understanding or what you think He should do.

No, I have absolutely no problem admitting that a God would could create the universe out of nothing, and has always existed, is way greater than lil ol me.

The problem arizes demonstrating that God is there to believe in.

But to get back to your "medical tool" question, I can tell you that prayers made "out of curiosity" or to "prove" something will probably not be answered because they have no faith behind them.

I understand that and said as much.

But I don't think every Chaplin, every religious community in the world who prays for a healthy outcome for a patient, lacks faith or is praying out of curiosity. Yet the prayers still go unanswered.

I'm sure you don't realize it, but your requests for proof would be insulting to God, because you have no faith. Faith is the prerequisite, whether you like it or not.

I don't see how my lack of faith and requesting proof would be an insult to an all powerful, all knowing, all kind and loving God. If this was the case, why are there apologists attempting to ''prove'' their God and their faith? They should just say, proving God to you would be an insult to Him, you just need faith.

Yeah, and that's the kicker. I can't have faith first in such a Deity without a shred of evidence of His existence. I would need proof, and then consider my position.

And if I had proof, I wouldn't need faith.

Sarah x

[Poseidon]

Originally Posted by mgoforth

But to get back to your "medical tool" question, I can tell you that prayers made "out of curiosity" or to "prove" something will probably not be answered because they have no faith behind them.


I'm sure you don't realize it, but your requests for proof would be insulting to God, because you have no faith. Faith is the prerequisite, whether you like it or not.

But why would God not answer prayers simply because some of the people praying are wondering if they're going to be answered? Basically, as I understand it you have to somehow force yourself to believe that the prayer will be answered or else it won't be. You can't wonder what will happen (and keep track of it in a scientific way) or else that's an insult to God, somehow.

And as for the prerequisite of faith, that makes no sense to me either. God is saying that he won't give you any help "getting there" (to belief) unless you're already there. That seems kind of pointless to me, and really just screams bad reasoning.

[cc42]

Poseidon and others: The existence of God can eb rationally proven and the obviousness of God's existence is known until someone deicides to question it, that would be a good starting point for faith in prayer.

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

But why would God not answer prayers simply because some of the people praying are wondering if they're going to be answered? Basically, as I understand it you have to somehow force yourself to believe that the prayer will be answered or else it won't be. You can't wonder what will happen (and keep track of it in a scientific way) or else that's an insult to God, somehow.

This leads to the weird position of saying have faith that your prayer will be answered, but when it's not answered, it's a case of well, what you asked for might not have been the best thing for you, as you're not God, so haven't got infinite knowledge, so God did answer your prayer, but in a way you don't recognize

How asking for that poor little girl to be returned to her desperate family and end their pain and suffering is not the best thing to pray and ask for, is beyond me

The argument goes that because she hasn't been returned, God know's best, so the prayers have been answered

I will just never get my head around that kind of reasoning.

Sarah x

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by cc42

Poseidon and others: The existence of God can be rationally proven and the obviousness of God's existence is known until someone deicides to question it, that would be a good starting point for faith in prayer.

I'm not sure whether "deicides" is a typo but it is decidedly - and delightfully - appropriate!

[ivebeenshown]

Originally Posted by ASimon

With the obvious difference that only your side is forced to change the definitions of words like "Love" and "Mercy" when you have to justify his allowing infants to drown helpless in their cribs.

Love is doing what is morally good. Exacting justice and displaying mercy are both morally good, though these moral goods may be accomplished by mankind through immoral means (police officers lying and bearing false witness to extract confessions, or Church officials covering up for priests who abuse children.)

Now, your problem is clearly that you think God is obliged to display mercy 100% of the time, as if he owes it to anyone. God is not 'all' merciful. He is infinitely merciful, yes -- but he is also infinitely just, and that infants suffer is a result of original justice, which was exacted against Adam and Eve's sin.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown

Now, your problem is clearly that you think God is obliged to display mercy 100% of the time, as if he owes it to anyone. God is not 'all' merciful. He is infinitely merciful, yes -- but he is also infinitely just, and that infants suffer is a result of original justice, which was exacted against Adam and Eve's sin.

CCC 385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

The evils in nature are not caused by sin. They existed on this planet before man existed.

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown

Love is doing what is morally good. Exacting justice and displaying mercy are both morally good, though these moral goods may be accomplished by mankind through immoral means (police officers lying and bearing false witness to extract confessions, or Church officials covering up for priests who abuse children.)

Now, your problem is clearly that you think God is obliged to display mercy 100% of the time, as if he owes it to anyone. God is not 'all' merciful. He is infinitely merciful, yes -- but he is also infinitely just, and that infants suffer is a result of original justice, which was exacted against Adam and Eve's sin.

Again, "my problem" is nothing of the sort. If God were not all merciful, all benevolent, or all powerful, that would simply be the reality of it all. And I'd get on just fine. My problem is that God's devotees endlessly fall over themselves to call every immoral act he commits (or allows) an example of Love, Mercy, or Justice.

[ivebeenshown]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

The evils in nature are not caused by sin. They existed on this planet before man existed.

That may be true in some sense but one must assess what the statement means, in light of other Catholic teaching:

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church's Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man's sin.571 Even though man's nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.572 "Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned" is thus "the last enemy" of man left to be conquered.573

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown

Love is doing what is morally good.

How is it morally good that a child should be punished for what two people did 6000 years ago

If I were to punish a child, today, for what her great great great great grandma did, I'd be considered evil and unethical and my actions immoral.

but he is also infinitely just, and that infants suffer is a result of original justice, which was exacted against Adam and Eve's sin.

Adam and Eve sinned, so it is just to punish an innocent child for this

Sarah x

[ivebeenshown]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

How is it morally good that a child should be punished for what two people did 6000 years ago

If I were to punish a child, today, for what her great great great great grandma did, I'd be considered evil and unethical and my actions immoral.

Adam and Eve sinned, so it is just to punish an innocent child for this

Sarah x

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of original sin and original justice. The infant was not personally punished for Adam and Eve's original sin; the infant suffered due to the punishment of Adam of Eve.

Ask yourself: is any punishment just or moral in your opinion, considering that any punishment against an individual could affect other individuals indirectly? A prison sentence against a gunman -- don't his children suffer misery?

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown

That may be true in some sense but one must assess what the statement means, in light of other Catholic teaching:

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church's Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man's sin.571 Even though man's nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin.572 "Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned" is thus "the last enemy" of man left to be conquered.573That may be true in some sense but one must assess what the statement means, in light of other Catholic teaching:

1. It means precisely what it says:

2. The evils in nature- including death - are not caused by sin.

3. The evils in nature - including death - existed on this planet before man existed.

4. Jesus told us: "Do not fear those who kill the body but those who kill the soul".