the fallibility of God isn’t hard to come by.
just look at the flood.
he saw the hearts of man, and saw it was evil. so he sought to destroy them. cue massive dramatic spectacle.
in the end: here we are, men. all alive and evil.
and God spoketh, “i have seen the hearts of men, and know that they are evil, but i will not destroy mankind.”
essentially nothing happened.
i guess this is what happens when a perfect being has totally flawful human lackies do His biographying.
It’s a Pavlovian response the brain has to try and predict the future.
Spit three times over your shoulder, wish for something to happen, and if it happens then you believe that spitting three times over your shoulder caused the event you wished for, even if the rate of success is abysmally low.
In our times, it’s a sign of severe lack of education.
By the way, 75% of Americans believe in angels.
I see your hand up, lets let a believer take this one.
It does seem to be hardwired into us to make quick predictions based upon correlation rather than causation. It may have been an evolutionary advantage when we were hunter-gatherers or even earlier. Is it still useful?
I doubt it was an advantage. Probably an unwanted outcome of brain development.
We now know what correlation is and how it is useless in predicting outcomes. However, it seems to be used a lot to gratify emotional needs of the brain – I spit three times, I won $10 in the lottery, so I’ll keep spitting till I’m drain of spit – kind of thing.
Belief and dependence in correlation seem to be associated with the emotional part of our existence, which is, provably, insignificant to the reality of nature.
read as blah blah blah
But precious few believe in elves. What’s up with that ? There’s way more direct evidence of the Shidhe than of angels. Who do you think steals half your socks and hides your keys & lighters ?
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
Has any person’s plea changed the mind of god?
[/QUOTE]
IIRC, Moses argued with him until he relented on some issues.
There’s also a fairly famous Jewish story about a congregation of rabbis discussing points of law, only to be interrupted by God butting in to give his ruling on the matter - the rabbis essentially told him to piss off because the point being discussed was outside of his jurisdiction according to existing laws. As the story goes, God went away laughing and told his angels how proud he was of his children for out-debating him.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
On Topic: Prayer goes against the idea of God having a plan. So the Christians who believe in the power of prayer are chuckleheads.
[/QUOTE]
In the interest of playing Devil’s advocate, only some (Protestant, mostly American) denominations go for the concept of god having an infallible master plan from alpha to omega. I believe the more conventional theology portrays god more like a kid with an ant farm, letting us freewheel it to see what happens. In that particular theological landscape, prayer makes more sense.
Predestination is an unsatisfying idea, anyway.
semantically speaking, paralogic is confusing correlation with coincidence. technically speaking (semantics, again), in science, all we have are weak/strong correlations. never, ever causation. causation is reducto, attributed after-the-fact upon enough corroberating corellaries.
so to answer your question: is it still useful? totally. it’s vital. if you grab a wire and feel a shock, how much corroberation do you need before you just don’t grab the wire…?
the first example i can think of, because it’s fresh (i just posted on this in GQ last week), is the Ohio fracking wells that were shut down when they correlated the water being pumped back in to the earthquakes.
it wasn’t an ipso facto cause, it was just a correlation, one we had to respond to on the fly, one that has been since corroberated through more rigorous testing. my friend who works in the natural gas industry, along with countless over officials in the field, are unwilling to call fracking a “cause” of earthquakes. which is fine, because we only need strong correlations of corroberated evidence. semantically they can debate there are no “causes.” only correlations.
i do not think this is the same as superstitious coincidences.
the lack of dinosaurs in my immediate area and the fact i keep a rock in my pocket believing it is what’s keeping the dinosaurs away isn’t corellary. it’s coincidental.
as i understood (again, i grew up a preachers kid and bought whole-heartedly into this stuff until, you know…college) it’s that God’s plan (aka His Will) is what He wants for you–but it’s not pre-ordained. you more or less have to opperate inside “His will” (eg: live well, pray, be loving–you know, wwjd stuff) to receive it.
it goes back to that straight and narrow, path ain’t easy stuff. you get outside the will of God, living however the heck you want, you stop getting grace bad things will happen. live right, good things happen.
none of this accounts for the success of Donald Trump.
i really do understand the frustrating nature of hardcore christians and other aspects of “blind faith,” but the scientific evaluation of the efficacy of prayer is utterly inconclusive in both directions. some studies find marked imporovements, some find prayer is slightly harmful, some find no change. since there’s like 2.4 million donated to this research privately and 2.3 by the government, it remains a pretty uncharted realm of science with no real conclusions.
my hypothesis is the efficacy of prayer hinges on the same principles as the efficacy of meditation and self-affirmation.
and meditation unequivocably works on an observable scientific scale.
monks can raise their body temperature and all that other crazy stuff. i saw a study on a dude who would go swimming in icey water that would kill normal humans. he’d do it without clothes. they did a battery of tests and found he could mentally focus through meditation, raising his temp over 10 degrees.
that’s kind of cool. i think prayer is the same virtual principle.
Jimmy Fallon has the antidote: Tebowie!
Since you didn’t read, I’ll repeat
Either way, a believer holds that God played a role in the outcome. Ergo, if team A wins, it’s because God willed or allowed it to. If team B wins, it’s because God willed or allowed it to. That’s why questions such as the poll asks are kind of silly; to believers, pretty much everything involves some degree of divine intervention, even if it’s just giving Tebow (or anyone else) ability and opportunity.
http://www.amandashome.com/footprints.html
To a Christian, not getting what you wanted does not prove anything. Period, full stop. I’m pretty confident Tim Tebow would say God was with him in all the games he’s lost over the years; and in point of fact he does give the same “thanks to my lord and savior” in injury-filled defeats that he does in victory. If getting what he asked for was all he cared about, presumably he’d have no reason to be grateful, yet he is.
You’re simply seeing a contradiction that Christians don’t.
That still makes no sense. A post hoc fallacy would be “I ate a bagel and then won at poker. Therefore the bagel caused me to win.”
As for the rest, neither the Op nor the survey enquire or disclose what point of view people are starting with,nothing suggests that they are working backwards, so I’m not sure what your objection really is, but it doesn’t seem logically founded to me. It looks more like an irrational insult against religious folks.
If the Pats beat Denver 31-6, will all this go away?
No.
I’m not insulting religious folks. I’m pointing out that the OP’s “challenge” doesn’t work. If you believe there’s a God and that he is helping Tim Tebow win football games, the OP isn’t going to be able to challenge that faith by arguing about the details of the game. If you already believe there’s a God, you’re going to be able to make up reasons to explain past events. It’s one thing if you want to ask why a just and loving God would allow natural disasters- that’s actually a difficult question. But the particulars of how the Broncos win games doesn’t challenge the divine intervention concept.
Maybe because fourth-quarter comebacks are more exciting and get people talking the next day. Maybe it’s a metaphor for Christianity. Maybe it’s supposed to discourage gambling. Maybe it’s a message to one boy in Iowa. You can make up any reason you want, and if things went the other way - if Tebow and the offense were really good and won every game easily - you could ask why God wants his messenger to win such boring games instead of exciting comebacks that would have people watching until the last second. And people could come up with reasons for that, too. It doesn’t challenge the core idea.
you have no idea what i asked or why.
i’m not challenging anyone on anything to begin with. what am i challenging…?
and who or when did anyone argue any details of the game?
when did i ever even bring up *any *details of *ANY *game?
i’m going to restate the initail post: people who believe God is behind the wins (which is fine–i’ve never said that’s absurd or challenged them on this issue)–i am simply asking if God helps team A because team A asked for God’s help, what happens if team B asks as well?
only one believer thus far has attempted an answer, and he gave a pretty honest answer: that God reads the hearts of men and who deserves it more wins more.
this is exactly the logical (loose term there) answer i’m seeking. i’m trying to understand the minds of people who think there’s a wish-granted God who, apparently, evaluates some criteria when determining granting said wish.
the “hearts of man” answer makes at least some sense, but it makes me wonder about all the other mitigating circumstances: the win affects not just the person who asks (let’s say it was Tim praying to win against the Charger’s kicker praying to win). Tim’s wish was granted, the kicker’s denied.
but the win affects more than just Tim. the owner of the bronco wins, as does the coach and front office staff and all else.
say tim’s got a better heart than whoever the kicker is. granted.
but what if Tim’s coach is a baby raping pagan? God would STILL more-or-less be rewarding him as well as Tim.
say the kicker’s is slightly not as awesome a human as Tim, so God sided with Tim. ok, but what if there’s a coach or a front office Charger guy who is THE BEST HUMAN ON THE PLANET? what i’m saying is there’s so much to account for, so many people affected and such a plethora of undeterminable complexities to consider that i can’t understand how someone can make sense of any of it.
so much so the concept is lost on me.
so i thought i’d ask someone who ‘get’s it.’ so far, like i said, only one person has ventured an answer.
if you think it’s a stupid question, don’t ask it. if you think i’m asking stupid questions, don’t enter the thread.
He’s down by 35 points in the third quarter.
Should he somehow pull it off, I’d consider that proof of divine intervention
You have to factor in the possibility that he’s working for Satan.
Here: