Please help me understand this argument

[Montalban]

Getting back on topic here. Everyone seems to be saying that prayer and magic (assuming magic works) have the same end result (changing the world in supernatural ways), and the only distinction is that magic calls on inanimate forces and prayer calls on animate ones.

Is that a good summary?

Let's assume that's close enough. Back to my original question. If someone prays to a god or gods and gets what they want (as in the above black box granny example) is that proof enough for the existence of these gods?

-Tatsukun

Your summary is not accurate. Only good comes from God, so any 'good' miracle comes from God, anything else supernatural is not from God, but from the devil - assuming that the 'miracle' is actually supernatural and not just the appearence of being such.

"Magic" if you accept that it is supernatural, would therefore prove the supernatural should it happen - assuming that the 'magic' is actually supernatural and not just the appearence of being such.

 

[Tatsukun]

Your summary is not accurate. Only good comes from God, so any 'good' miracle comes from God, anything else supernatural is not from God, but from the devil - assuming that the 'miracle' is actually supernatural and not just the appearence of being such.

"Magic" if you accept that it is supernatural, would therefore prove the supernatural should it happen - assuming that the 'magic' is actually supernatural and not just the appearence of being such.

Hmm. Ok. So, in the above black box situation, my granny gets better, so that is either a random natural occurrence, or a miracle from (?your?) god?

If I am understanding you, if the man in the story called on inanimate (magic) forces, that would mean granny's recovery had to be a natural occurrence. But what if he prayed to a different god than yours? If he prayed to, say, Ganesha and my granny got better, does that prove that Ganesha exists?

That's really the crux of my problem with the "I've seen magic" argument for the existence of gods. How do you know the result you got was related to your prayer? Couldn't I claim that I have a god that answers everyone's prayers and is thus responsible for all good that happens in the world?

Doesn't that make the "I've seen miracles and thus my god exists" argument moot?

-Tatsukun

 

[Montalban]

Hmm. Ok. So, in the above black box situation, my granny gets better, so that is either a random natural occurrence, or a miracle from (?your?) god?

You expect me to determine from one sentence if a real miracle has happened?

If I am understanding you, if the man in the story called on inanimate (magic) forces, that would mean granny's recovery had to be a natural occurrence. But what if he prayed to a different god than yours? If he prayed to, say, Ganesha and my granny got better, does that prove that Ganesha exists?

That's not what I've said at all.

That's really the crux of my problem with the "I've seen magic" argument for the existence of gods. How do you know the result you got was related to your prayer? Couldn't I claim that I have a god that answers everyone's prayers and is thus responsible for all good that happens in the world?

How would that help? If there were 'any' god involved, even if it weren't God whom I'm pray too, it would still be a miracle.

Doesn't that make the "I've seen miracles and thus my god exists" argument moot?

Do you know that moot means up for debate? But seem my previous comment above; it's just logic; any example of the supernatural proves the supernatural.

 

[peaceful soul]

....

Do you know that moot means up for debate? But seem my previous comment above; it's just logic; any example of the supernatural proves the supernatural.

Just so that you know, 'moot point', at least in the US, means that a particular argument of a debate is not worth discussing since it doesn't matter in the end. It normally doesn't matter because one of the premises or support statements can't be carried out or has been made impractical for the issue at hand; therefore, further discussion becomes irrelevant.

For example:

If my car didn't start and I couldn't drive it to work today, it would be moot to ask me how many miles per gallon my car averaged today in a round trip to and from work. However, it would still be OK if we just wanted to talk about average mileage of my car to and from work. Although that may be a good discussion, it does not address the intended purpose I first addressed.

I assume that you probably already knew what the intended meaning of 'moot' was, but I just wanted to clarify in case you didn't. I am, of course, assuming that this person is from the US.

 

[Montalban]

Here in Australia and other Commonwealth countries when people learn the law they can take part in 'moot' courts - that is a kind of mock court - that the lesson has people in different roles to debate a case as if they were actually in those roles in court.

–adjective
1.
open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2.
of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3.
Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
–verb (used with object)
4.
to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion.
5.
to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.
6.
Archaic. to argue (a case), esp. in a mock court. –noun
7.
an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers.
8.
an argument or discussion, esp. of a hypothetical legal case.
9.
Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion.
Moot | Define Moot at Dictionary.com

This is an American dictionary site. I find it odd that they say 'archaic', because if you were learning law at the Australian National University in 1986 you took part in 'moot courts'. And you dealt with 'moot points'.

Am I that old? Let me look further...

"moot court
n. law school exercise in which students argue both sides of an appeal from a fictitious lawsuit in a mock court. There are also moot court contests between teams from different law schools."
law.com Law Dictionary

Moot
A side issue, problem or question which does not have to be decided to resolve the main issues in a dispute.

Also called a "moot point": a side issue, problem or question which does not have to be decided to resolve the main issues in a dispute.
Legal Definition of Moot

moot
(of a trial or hearing) hypothetical, staged for practice, from moot hypothetical case for law students, argument, deliberative assembly, from Old English mot assembly, meeting

: deprived of practical significance: made abstract or purely academic
Example: the case became {h,2}moot when the defendant paid the sum at issue
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/sc...com&topic=cc/cc9760416aa8c8b516a15b24ed2ca171

moot
1) Unsettled, open to argument, or debatable. 2) Without practical significance; hypothetical or academic. (See also: moot point, moot court)
moot definition - Nolo's Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

See, I'm not out of touch!

I've got my Butterworth's Legal Dictionary around somewhere too, but I can't find it.

 

[Chesterton]

I've got my Butterworth's Legal Dictionary around somewhere too, but I can't find it.

I've got Black's (American and English).

moot. A subject for argument; unsettled; undecided. A moot point is one not settled by judicial decisions. A moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which does not arise upon existing facts or rights.

mooting. The exercise of arguing questions of law or equity, raised for the purpose.

mooter. Marihuana is popularly known among the criminal element as "muggles" or "mooter" and addicts are commonly termed "muggle heads". (Wow, this is an old book. )

 

[Tatsukun]

Whoops, I guess I have to account for non-American English here. I was using "moot" in the "not worth debating, already decided" sort of meaning.

I was also using "you" in the "You are saying" line to mean "the people on this board". That's just bad writing, and I apologize. (The sad thing? I'm an English professor!) Anyway, I think it was HumbleMuslim making that animate/inanimate distinction.

So, Montalban, are you saying that any real miracle comes from (?your?) god, but that there are other things that look supernatural but aren't miracles and that those come from "satan"?

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page regarding what the arguments are here.

To sum up my point / issue (reason for making this thread), I often hear theists say things similar to "I know my god exists because when I pray for things I get them". My point is that this isn't a real argument unless you can accept that other people's prayers coming true also proves their gods exist.

Keep in mind, as an atheist, I don't believe in magic, and might thus have a hard time buying this argument anyway. But it's good to know what people are thinking.

-Tatsukun
​

 

[Under Grace]

Thanks for contributing, but I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that it's not magic if you get what you want? Or, are you saying it's not magic if you call on Jesus for the power as opposed to other gods / beings?

-Tatsukun

Late reply. There is no magic with the followers of Christ. (Non-christian sources of magic are only illusionary. Demons only mislead the enchantors). There is only one G*d and he can be seen thru Jesus Christ. Believe in Him and have faith in Him.

ό ων

 

[Tatsukun]

Late reply. There is no magic with the followers of Christ. (Non-christian sources of magic are only illusionary. Demons only mislead the enchantors). There is only one G*d and he can be seen thru Jesus Christ. Believe in Him and have faith in Him.

ό ων

Interesting. In the above black box scenario, would you argue that if the mysterious guy is a christian, there is a chance my granny recovering is a miracle from Yahweh, but if he is not a christian, her recovery is an illusion caused by Satan?

-Tatsukun

 

[Montalban]

Whoops, I guess I have to account for non-American English here. I was using "moot" in the "not worth debating, already decided" sort of meaning.

Ah, okay.

I was also using "you" in the "You are saying" line to mean "the people on this board". That's just bad writing, and I apologize. (The sad thing? I'm an English professor!) Anyway, I think it was HumbleMuslim making that animate/inanimate distinction.

Sorry, for any misunderstanding on my part

So, Montalban, are you saying that any real miracle comes from (?your?) god, but that there are other things that look supernatural but aren't miracles and that those come from "satan"?

No. I think I'm to blame in part of this too.

Satan is 'supernatural', and is a source of what might appear 'magic' (to use your term).

God is supernatural, too.

What comes from God is good. What comes from Satan is not good.

BUT then some things some people might attribute to 'supernatural', and it might actually be something natural.

 

[Tatsukun]

Ah, okay.

Sorry, for any misunderstanding on my part

No. I think I'm to blame in part of this too.

Satan is 'supernatural', and is a source of what might appear 'magic' (to use your term).

God is supernatural, too.

What comes from God is good. What comes from Satan is not good.

BUT then some things some people might attribute to 'supernatural', and it might actually be something natural.

Aah, ok, I think I'm with you now.

So, if something is unexplainable (supernatural / magical) and good, it might be a miracle from (?your?) god or it might be chance. If something is unexplainable (supernatural / magical) and bad, it might be from "Satan" or might be chance.

Is that your argument?

-Tatsukun

 

[Wicked Willow]

Whosoever believes that prayer is not a form of magic(k) doesn't know the first thing about the latter to begin with. I'd suggest that it is a knee-jerk response ("magic = bad = not prayer") rather than anything else.

Apart from that, is there really no one who can see the sheer absurdity of the kind of wish-fulfillment prayer that's so common among Christians (and, I suppose, the other Abrahamaic religions)?
Just think about it: your God is ALL-KNOWING; He is ALL-POWERFUL; He is SOVEREIGN; the unfolding of the Universe happens according to His Will, His divine plan - and yet you feel that you must give him suggestions with regards to the best course of action? And that your entreaties cause Him to re-shape the world according to your personal desires? What hubris! What appalling pride!

In your tradition, which views God as external, personal, and omnimax, there can be only one prayer: "THY will be done". Anything else would be blasphemy.

 

[hikersong]

Just think about it: your God is ALL-KNOWING; He is ALL-POWERFUL; He is SOVEREIGN; the unfolding of the Universe happens according to His Will, His divine plan - and yet you feel that you must give him suggestions with regards to the best course of action? And that your entreaties cause Him to re-shape the world according to your personal desires? What hubris! What appalling pride!

In your tradition, which views God as external, personal, and omnimax, there can be only one prayer: "THY will be done". Anything else would be blasphemy.

Those who teach this sort of praying ("ask and you will recieve") teach that God is sovereign but that he wants a relationship in which people are actively involved in learning to will the things that He (God) wills. I do not doubt that this sort of praying can have a role in changing a persons circumstances simply because it changes the way a person thinks.

So I would argue that this is a psychological phenomenon. I don't have a problem with that sort of praying...only with the theology that accompanies it....God is on my side but not on yours. And also because in some people it can, ironically, encourage a very materialistic mindset.

 

[Montalban]

In your tradition, which views God as external, personal, and omnimax, there can be only one prayer: "THY will be done". Anything else would be blasphemy.

One of the Orthodox prayers is explicitly that God's will be done.

Howevwe, God has given us Free Will. When I pray I am praying in order that I become closer to God, freely.

There's a thread on General Theology about the forgiveness called "What's the point?" which has implications here. There I said that we forgive others as God has forgiven us, because we are called to be as God.

Prayer is us being connected with God. We wish to be with God.

 

[Montalban]

Aah, ok, I think I'm with you now.

So, if something is unexplainable (supernatural / magical) and good, it might be a miracle from (?your?) god or it might be chance. If something is unexplainable (supernatural / magical) and bad, it might be from "Satan" or might be chance.

Is that your argument?

I'll try this again. My apologies

If something appears to be supernatural, it may not actually be so.

However if it is actually supernatural it has one of two soruces; God, or not God. If 'not God' (ie Satan, demons, etc.) then it is not 'good'. If it is from God it is 'good'.

But then, just to add to confusion some things might appear to be good, and not actually be so, either

 

[Wicked Willow]

Those who teach this sort of praying ("ask and you will recieve") teach that God is sovereign but that he wants a relationship in which people are actively involved in learning to will the things that He (God) wills. I do not doubt that this sort of praying can have a role in changing a persons circumstances simply because it changes the way a person thinks.

It still does not add up. If there was a sovereign God, whatever happens - happens according to His plan, with Free Will already taken into account. And I doubt that you could build a functional relationship if you basically relate to God as you would to a "Sugar Daddy", basically ticking off your wish list.
I mean, come on: these wish-fulfillment prayers are rarely about "learning to will the things that God wills", at least if what we may read of them online is any indication. I've read Christians freely confess to praying to find lost contact lenses, or parking space, or (to cite a notorious post that's been immortalized on FSTDT) for God to curse their baby brother with hair in the place where the sun don't shine.

So I would argue that this is a psychological phenomenon. I don't have a problem with that sort of praying...only with the theology that accompanies it....God is on my side but not on yours. And also because in some people it can, ironically, encourage a very materialistic mindset.

"Dear God, we want a new house. Make us win the lottery! In the name of Jesus, I pray!"

 

[Wicked Willow]

One of the Orthodox prayers is explicitly that God's will be done.

Well, it's part of the famous "Our Father"-prayer, isn't it? And that, in turn, is how Jesus specifically instructed his followers to pray. I wonder why so many do not heed his words on the matter.

Howevwe, God has given us Free Will. When I pray I am praying in order that I become closer to God, freely.

That, naturally, is the sort of prayer I can relate to; the sort of prayer that makes sense, given your theological premises. You can hardly confuse it with the practices I criticized here, can you?
I'm not saying that PRAYER is incompatible with the Christian God. I'm specifically talking about prayers whose main objective is getting your (material) wishes fulfilled by supernatural means. Heck, there are even PRAYER CIRCLES, as if your God could be bribed or bullied by sheer numbers.

 

[Tatsukun]

I'll try this again. My apologies

If something appears to be supernatural, it may not actually be so.

However if it is actually supernatural it has one of two soruces; God, or not God. If 'not God' (ie Satan, demons, etc.) then it is not 'good'. If it is from God it is 'good'.

But then, just to add to confusion some things might appear to be good, and not actually be so, either

Ok, that makes sense as an argument. It seems that while we disagree about the existence of the supernatural realm, we agree that seemingly supernatural events do not prove the existence of any particular god.

So can we safely dismiss (render the American meaning of 'moot') the "I know my god is real, I prayed for X and I got it" argument?

-Tatsukun

 

[Tatsukun]

Willow, I think we're getting back into the two types of prayer we talked about earlier.

Bushmaster has argued that prayers which are a list of things to get are not proper Christian prayers and shouldn't even really be considered prayer.

He thus has divided prayer into two catagories, prayers which are an attempt to get close to a god and/or praise that god (?those gods?) and the other type, the aforementioned wishlist.

I would put forth that the second type of prayer might be better sent to Santa than any of the major gods.

It does make me wonder, if this is the general consensus among Christians, why there is a "prayer request" section of every christian website. Perhaps it's used more as a place to get together and talk through problems than a real "Please pray that I get a new car" sort of place. (I don't know, I am not a christian and am thus not allowed in that area).

Maybe a christian reading this will let me know what goes on in there...

-Tatsukun

 

[Chesterton]

Bushmaster has argued that prayers which are a list of things to get are not proper Christian prayers and shouldn't even really be considered prayer.

He thus has divided prayer into two catagories, prayers which are an attempt to get close to a god and/or praise that god (?those gods?) and the other type, the aforementioned wishlist.

I would put forth that the second type of prayer might be better sent to Santa than any of the major gods.

It does make me wonder, if this is the general consensus among Christians, why there is a "prayer request" section of every christian website. Perhaps it's used more as a place to get together and talk through problems than a real "Please pray that I get a new car" sort of place. (I don't know, I am not a christian and am thus not allowed in that area).

Maybe a christian reading this will let me know what goes on in there...

-Tatsukun

I haven't followed the thread perfectly so forgive me if someone's already said this, but, Bushmaster's right that prayer should never be a wishlist, but at the same it is okay to pray for things you need. Our Lord gave us a prayer wherein we are to pray for "our daily bread" and protection from evil. You could even pray for a car (or a bicylce or a horse or whatever) if transportation was a genuine need in your life, but it would be wrong to pray for a new sports car that you just want.