How to test prayer?

[Bri]

An omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent being is a pretty incoherent concept.

For example, can God make a stone so large he cannot lift it? The usual answer to that one is that it's a logical contradiction. God can make a stone of any size, but he will always be able to lift it.

I would say that the question itself is incoherent, but the concept of an omnipotent God is not necessarily incoherent (depending on how you define omnipotence). We can reasonably assume that the definition of "omnipotence" includes the ability to lift any size stone. Therefore, your hypothetical stone that an omnipotent being can't lift is logically impossible. It cannot exist -- it is nonsensical, like a square circle or a married bachelor.

Your question could be rephrased as: Can an omnipotent being cause something to exist that can't exist? Or more generally: Can an omnipotent being do something that can't be done?

If you define omnipotence in such a way that your answer to that question is "yes an omnipotent being must be able to do the logically impossible," then we have no basis for talking about such a being (it is outside of logic and we are entirely constrained by logic). That would be our own shortcoming, and unfortunately would be the end of an otherwise interesting discussion.

However, if we define omnipotence as "the ability to do anything that can be done" rather than "the ability to do anything, including the logically impossible" it alleviates the problem and we can carry on. Similarly, omniscience may be defined as "the ability to know anything that can be known."

-Bri

 

[Southwind17]

I would say that the question itself is incoherent, but the concept of an omnipotent God is not necessarily incoherent (depending on how you define omnipotence). We can reasonably assume that the definition of "omnipotence" includes the ability to lift any size stone. Therefore, your hypothetical stone that an omnipotent being can't lift is logically impossible. It cannot exist -- it is nonsensical, like a square circle or a married bachelor.

Your question could be rephrased as: Can an omnipotent being cause something to exist that can't exist? Or more generally: Can an omnipotent being do something that can't be done?

If you define omnipotence in such a way that your answer to that question is "yes an omnipotent being must be able to do the logically impossible," then we have no basis for talking about such a being (it is outside of logic and we are entirely constrained by logic). That would be our own shortcoming, and unfortunately would be the end of an otherwise interesting discussion.

However, if we define omnipotence as "the ability to do anything that can be done" rather than "the ability to do anything, including the logically impossible" it alleviates the problem and we can carry on. Similarly, omniscience may be defined as "the ability to know anything that can be known."

-Bri

You're not seriously suggesting that one should apply logic to determine the validity of detailed arguments in a wider debate over the existence of god are you?!

 

[Bri]

There is? Do these folks have some special definition of literal?

Given that language itself is imprecise, then you can literally read just about anything in multiple ways.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

You're not seriously suggesting that one should apply logic to determine the validity of detailed arguments in a wider debate over the existence of god are you?!

I'm saying that you can disprove the truth of a proposition (including the existence of a god) by proving that the proposition is logically impossible. You can certainly disprove a god by defining the god in such a way that it is logically impossible to begin with, but somehow I don't think that would accomplish much.

-Bri

 

[Southwind17]

I'm saying that you can disprove the truth of a proposition (including the existence of a god) by proving that the proposition is logically impossible. You can certainly disprove a god by defining the god in such a way that it is logically impossible to begin with, but somehow I don't think that would accomplish much.

-Bri

You think the definition would determine the logical impossibility, or otherwise?!

 

[Bri]

Southwind17,

That's certainly what ChristineR was suggesting in the post to which I was referring.

-Bri

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind17,

That's certainly what ChristineR was suggesting in the post to which I was referring.

-Bri

ChristineR might well have been suggesting it, but you're actually 'saying it':

You can certainly disprove a god by defining the god in such a way that it is logically impossible to begin with, but somehow I don't think that would accomplish much.

-Bri

So, how about an example of a definition of god that's 'logically possible'?

 

[ChristineR]

If we all agree that some definitions of omnipotence are logically incoherent, what is the definition that is not logically incoherent?

One definition I've heard is that an omnipotent God can do anything that is not logically contradictory. But that's useless: what it comes down to in practice is that there's just enough suffering as is necessary for us to grow; that God is just as unknowable as is necessary for us to have free will, etc., etc.

But the real question is whether someone can come up with a coherent definition that predicts all this sort of thing in advance.

For example, can you explain to me why God let terrorists fly airplanes into a building but God parted a sea to allow some Jewish runaway slaves to escape the authorities? Other than just saying "Those two situations must be different; one must be logically possible; the other must be logically impossible; we just don't know why."

 

[dahduh]

The easiest and most objective way of testing if prayer works that I can think of is to send your priest off to the nearest casino with the the contents of the collection plate. If prayer works even a tiny bit, then the odds will be skewed in your church's favor and you will make a bunch of caboodle.

When you don't make a bunch of caboodle and the rev. turns somewhat inebriated and with lipstick on his collar, you could always conclude that God doesn't like to be tested. But if God refuses to answer prayers every time you ask him to fix a game for you, then prayer's pretty irrelevant anyway.

I think the fact that churches run the bingo nights, rather than play the odds themselves, is rather suggestive.

 

[six7s]

If we all agree that some definitions of omnipotence are logically incoherent, what is the definition that is not logically incoherent?

Omnipotent:

+ omni: all, every (Latin)
+ potent: daddy (Sanskrit)
__________________________
= omnipotent: everyones big sky daddy - a mythological figure designed by and for people afraid of the unknown and unable to consider a simpler, less extraordinary cause/effect relationship observed in reality​

Logical? I think so
Coherent? I hope so

 

[Bri]

So, how about an example of a definition of god that's 'logically possible'?

Do you only require one? A diest God is logically possible.

ETA: Do you have an example of a common definition of god that's logically impossible?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

For example, can you explain to me why God let terrorists fly airplanes into a building but God parted a sea to allow some Jewish runaway slaves to escape the authorities? Other than just saying "Those two situations must be different; one must be logically possible; the other must be logically impossible; we just don't know why."

I think you may be misunderstanding the phrase "logically possible." Both of those things are logically possible.

The question you seem to be asking is how both events could have been for the greater good. Without being omniscient, I don't know that either event was for the greater good, but it is possible that both could have been for the greater good.

-Bri

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I am not sure that a successful test of the efficacy of prayer would even achieve anything much besides casting serious doubt onto the nature of the God that is being prayed to. After all, successful prayer would mean that God before being prayed to held opinion A, and after being prayed to opinion B.

I mean, what gives? Can God be bossed around if only enough people get together and tell him/her/it the same point over and over? Or some such.

(ETA: But then again, that all is not really my problem. )

 

[six7s]

Can God be bossed around if only enough people get together and tell him/her/it the same point over and over? Or some such.

Its the squeaky wheels that get the oil

Is Yahweh's Customer Satisfaction Slipping?
six7s - plagiarised from www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog

The University of HREF has announced its annual ranking of customer service by GOD manufacturers. Yahweh is still tops in the industry, as it has been forever. But it tied Hell for the biggest drop since last year, with a five percent decline. Here's what survey author Claus Farkinell had to say:

With more than $42 gazillion in revenue, Yahweh has grown by nearly 400% in sales during the past 5 years. Recent demand for Allah prayer rugs is up by about 25%, which is more than twice the rate of growth for the overall GOD market. Many analysts seem to believe that Yahweh is gaining market share in part because of iPrayer users switching to Allah prayer rugs. It is very difficult to ensure that both customer service and satisfaction stay high when a company suddenly needs to service many more customers. This is probably what is behind the decline in customer satisfaction for Yahweh. According to the Ecstacist (6/9/07), there are also "grumblings about manufacturing defects and customer service."​

And he didn't even mention the iProstrate, which will present a slew of unfamiliar new kinds of customer complaints for Yahweh to learn to deal with. So what do you think? Are you as satisfied with Yahweh as you were a year ago? Is its customer service and product quality holding up?

12:01 AM

Customer Service

Comments

I just wish all the jealous, negative people that have nothing better to do with their stinking lives than bash Yahweh would simply just DROP DEAD!!!!!
Posted by: xxxxxx xxxxxxxx at August 13, 2007 09:50 PM

As a long term Yahweh customer and user I find the customer service is still tops, especially when you go to a store. However, the quality is long gone. I've purchased two GodBooks in the last year, both have had catastrophic hard disc (Hellsgate) failures. I don't believe this is a statistical anomaly. This has delayed indefinitely my purchase of the 17" GodBook Pro or any other God computer. If the current drive goes I'm not sure what I will do.
(No problems with my iPrayer)
Posted by: xxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxx at August 14, 2007 12:33 AM

It seems to me that Gods are still superbly-engineered, but not nearly as well-built.

My old PowerBibles used to be built like tanks...then again, my old PowerBibles used to cost $4000...

It's a trade-off, people...
Posted by: xxxx at August 14, 2007 03:59 AM​

 

[ChristineR]

I think you may be misunderstanding the phrase "logically possible." Both of those things are logically possible.

The question you seem to be asking is how both events could have been for the greater good. Without being omniscient, I don't know that either event was for the greater good, but it is possible that both could have been for the greater good.

-Bri

No, that isn't the question I'm asking. The claim is that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God allows these sorts of evils because they are for the greater good. In other words, God could not have stopped the terrorists for the same reason God cannot make the big stone he cannot lift. It's supposed to be logically impossible, an inherent contradiction. The idea of God stopping the terrorists is supposed to negate the idea of humans having free will, just as the idea of God making a big stone negates the idea of God lifting it.

The question I'm asking is whether anyone can shed some light on why it's logically impossible for God to do one thing and not the other. The claim that not stopping the terrorists was for the greater good seems absurd to me.

So I contest the claim that a definition of "omnipotent, but only within logical possibility" is coherent. Nobody can tell me what it means, except claiming that our current reality is by definition the best an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity can give us.

 

[Southwind17]

Do you only require one? A diest God is logically possible.

What's your logic?

 

[articulett]

Yes, if god is not detectable as a prayer answering agent... does as his will anyhow... knows what people want before they pray for it... and knows how it's all going to turn out anyhow... then why do people pray? I mean if the results are identical to not praying or to wishing on a star... then-- why? If people don't expect anything, then maybe they ought to keep their superstitions to themselves if they don't want skeptics to probe. If prayer has not detectable effect than that is the same result as prayer having no effect, right? Although, I guess it gives the pray-er something to do other than fretting...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is? Do these folks have some special definition of literal?

~~ Paul

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think praying is misunderstood.

Emo Philips seems to have got it right:



Should be fun to test.

That is sooo funny. It's great.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Given that language itself is imprecise, then you can literally read just about anything in multiple ways.

-Bri

It's one thing to interpret something like the word "should" as "ought to" or "must". It's quite another to claim a text is the word of God when the text itself is full of outright contradictions and 'believers' following the supposed 'word of God' come up with interpretations as diverse as, "take care of the Earth, God put you in charge", and, "use anything of the Earth you want, you can't destroy God's creation, plus the rapture is coming anyway". If not God, then the Bible at least is incoherent!

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible's list of contradictions from minor to major issues.