The Religious Stuff..& all things are possible except skiing through a revolving door

June 18, 2007

The God Who Delights In Answering Prayer

Filed under: Christianity, Prayer — Admin Staff @ 8:58 am


Luke 11:5-13

The Reverend Bryn MacPhail / February 27, 2005

Prayer is an institution of God. Over and over again, the Bible commands us to pray. And yet, I suspect that many of us, having prayed, have wondered about whether our prayers will actually change anything.

As we ponder the subject of whether or not prayer changes anything, we must be sure to bear in mind God’s character. Why would God mandate an exercise that is ineffectual? Why would God command me to do something that has no more effect than if I whistled in the wind? If prayer changes nothing, it is a monstrous absurdity that God would ordain it (Spurgeon). But, of course, because God has ordained prayer it necessarily follows that it has the capacity of being effectual. God’s institutions are not folly.

Our study, this morning, of answered prayer is, therefore, an exciting exercise. It is exciting to learn from our Lord Jesus Christ that our prayers are not empty words. It is exciting to learn that prayer is the means appointed by God for carrying out His will.

There is, however, a sobering aspect to our study. The study of answered prayer is sobering in that we learn that not every kind of prayer will be answered in the affirmative.

We know this already from experience. We know what it is like to pray for someone who is very sick only to have them never recover. We know what it is like to pray for someone in a difficult situation only to see no change.

In my study on prayer, I had hoped that I would find some secret formula to getting all of my prayers answered, but I found no such formula. But what I did find, however, was a source of tremendous encouragement to me.

The Lord Jesus Christ teaches extensively on prayer and, for our purposes, we shall examine His teachings from Luke 11:5-13 and Luke 18:1-8.

Jesus tells a parable about a man who needs to acquire some bread from a friend in order to offer hospitality to another friend who has arrived following a long journey. The problem facing the man seeking bread is that it is midnight. He calls on his friend asking for three loaves of bread (11:5), but the house is shut up, and the man inside explains that the family is already in bed (11:7).

Studying the history of the day has led commentators to surmise that this family likely lived in a one-room house with a raised platform on which the entire family would sleep. The animals would be brought in at night and would sleep below this platform. As a result, the man inside could not get up without disturbing the entire household. There appears to be no objection to giving away three loaves of bread, but the trouble of getting up and opening the door is quite another matter (Morris, Luke, 213).

The man in need of bread is not easily deterred. He refuses to go away. And where his friendship fails to sufficiently motivate the man inside, his persistence succeeds. Jesus explains, “even though he will not get up because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs” (15:8).

The principle being taught, quite clearly, is that we need to be persistent in our prayers. We must not be deterred by a slow answer. Since prayer does not always yield an instant result, we are required to continue in prayer.

Jesus teaches the same principle in the parable of Luke 18, where the judge who feared neither God nor man is approached by a widow seeking legal protection. For a time, the judge is “unwilling” to help, but eventually he capitulates with her request, saying to himself, “Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection” (18:4, 5).

The man seeking bread, and the widow seeking legal protection, have this in common: Both received what they sought because they persevered in their request.

As we approach God in prayer, we too need to be prepared to persist in our prayers. Very clearly, Jesus wants us to be like the friend who won’t stop knocking; He wants us to be like the widow who keeps petitioning the judge; He wants us to prevail in prayer.

What is less obvious is how we are to view God based on these parables. Admittedly, many of the parables taught by Jesus instruct us by comparisons of likeness. We read the parable of the Good Samaritan and we understand that we are to be like the Good Samaritan. We read the parables about three things lost and we understand that God is like the shepherd seeking the sheep, He is like the woman seeking the coin, and He is like the father seeking the son.

The parables of Luke 11 and 18, however, are different. In these texts there is a comparison of likeness and a comparison of contrast. On the one hand, we are instructed to be like the persistent friend and widow, but on the other hand, in regards to God’s response, the point being taught is made by contrast. God is not like the reluctant friend; God is not like stubborn judge. According to Jesus, we do not have to twist God’s arm; we do not have to wear God down with our prayers in order to get what we need. Quite the contrary; Jesus says, “Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you”(11:9).

Here we see that God is not reluctant, but rather, He is eager to answer our prayers. Jesus’ second qualification makes the same point, “Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”(11:11-13).

A similar qualification is given in Luke 18, “now shall not God bring about justice for His elect, who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? I tell you that He will bring about justice for them speedily” (18:7, 8).

The point is that if reluctant friends, fallible fathers, and unjust judges are willing to give good things, how much more can we expect our Heavenly Father to provide us with good things!

Bear in mind, however, that we do not get to be the judge of what is good. As the Holy and Sovereign Ruler of the Universe, God alone determines what constitutes a good gift.

This should help explain why not all of our prayers are answered in the affirmative. What seems good to us, and perhaps to everyone around us, may not be good in respect to God’s eternal plan. For example, who can blame Peter for initially thinking that Jesus dying was a bad thing (see Mt. 16:21-23)? Peter was prepared to do whatever it took to protect Jesus from harm—sounds like a good thing, doesn’t it? But what does Jesus say in reply? “Get behind Me, Satan! . . . for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests but man’s” (Mt. 16:21-23).

This rebuke is an important key for how we are to shape our prayers. Prayer that God eagerly answers is prayer that comes from setting our minds on God’s interests. If our mind is merely set on improving our circumstances, without any regard for God’s purposes, we have a problem.

Again, this comes down to grasping what is truly good for us. And, unfortunately, we are not well positioned to always determine what is best.

Young children regularly face this challenge. Anya has recently discovered that she likes her mother’s chewing gum. The trouble is that Anya imagines that she can have gum whenever she wants, and in unlimited quantity. As a result, Allie and I are frequently refusing Anya’s persistent requests for gum.

This past Wednesday, Allie, Anya, and I were in the church lounge, awaiting folks for the evening program. Allie noticed that Anya was chewing gum and asked me if I had given her some. I said ‘No’, and so Allie asked Anya where she got the gum from; Anya then pointed to the underside of one of the lounge chairs.

Not a pretty story, I realize, but I see a striking parallel to how we sometimes respond to God when He refuses to answer our prayers in a timely fashion. There are times when, after refusing our request, we plow ahead anyway, without regard for the will of God.

Chewing gum from a mother’s hand is sweet to taste, but gum from the underside of a chair is just disgusting. Likewise, provision from the hand of God is sweet, but provision gained by circumventing the will of God will surely end in ruin.

What sort of things then, should we be asking God for? The example of a “good gift” that Jesus presents us with is the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This answer tells me that I am praying too superficially. Or, at best, I’m neglecting to pray for that which is of supreme importance. I’m praying that I would be a better husband, a better father, a better Christian, and a better minister, but really only one prayer is needful here: ‘Lord, fill me with your Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18). In every circumstance, keep me “in step” with Your Spirit’ (Gal. 5:25).

As a minister in this congregation, I find myself praying for more volunteers, I’m praying for a unity of purpose to be shared by the members, and I’m praying for better attendance on Sunday mornings, but what I really need to pray is: ‘Lord, pour out Your Spirit upon this congregation!’

The Holy Spirit is the best gift we could ever hope to receive from God. Only by God’s Spirit can we be made more like Christ, and only by God’s Spirit can this congregation be all that God intends us to be.

Friends, when was the last time you prayed for the gift of the Holy Spirit? Yes, it is true that the Spirit of God indwells every Christian (Rom. 8:11), but the apostle Paul tells us that we have the ability to “grieve” and “quench” the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:30; 1Thess. 5:19). In other words, there is a way to misuse and neglect the Divine resource within us.

Because our goal is total transformation, because our ultimate goal is Christ-likeness (see Phil. 3:8-14), we need to be persistent in our prayer for the Holy Spirit to be at work in us, and among us.

Our encouragement for praying in this regard is the promise of answered prayer. Jesus wants us to know that God is not unjust; God is not asleep. Jesus wants us to know that our Heavenly Father is more inclined to give us good gifts than even our earthly parents.

What is required of us is that we persist in our asking, in our seeking, and in our knocking. Do not tire of asking God for good things, for our Heavenly Father is eager to bless His children when they pray.


12 Comments »

  1. Of course the rather curious result of thinking an omnipotent God answers our prayers is that in praying and having our prayers answered we acquire a stake in God’s omnipotence. If by prayer I can move God to act on my behalf, then I essentially have access to aspects of his power. And there is not reason at all to believe people have such power. What actually happens is that millions around the world die in wars, starve and suffer through disease and natural disasters. Their prayers are not answered. To suggest otherwise is to give people false hope. The natural response of the believer to this is frequently that “God works in mysterious ways” or that “God answers the prayers just not how you would like necessarily.” Indeed. Then how do you know that what he is providing is an answer at all, not just more things happening that are not connected to it at all?

    AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com

    Comment by religionandatheism — June 18, 2007 @ 9:18 am

  2. Dear R&A
    I dont think we acquire a stake in Gods anything.

    AS humans we messed up. This whole sin thing is bigger than just the earth.

    Do I think its fair? Guess I dont because it affects me personally. Buts thats the way it is.

    On the other hand, every single worthwhile achievement made by a human on this earth costs in life, effort, sweat and loss.

    With God, he at least offers to put it right at the right time.

    Can prayer move God to work in our behalf? Yes and no. Yes he can as long as its within the overall frame of his direction, and no…because globally man is making a mess of ruling himself.

    I could be a good atheist. A very good one. However, I have a God size hole within me that would never be filled unless i continue to take the time to seek him out. Either road is a difficult one because life is difficult.

    Only time will tell.

    Comment by GW staff — June 18, 2007 @ 9:45 am

  3. Let me answer some of your points:

    “I dont think we acquire a stake in Gods anything.”

    How not? As I say, if God does something because we ask him that he would not have done otherwise then an action results as a result of us asking him to use his power. That is us moving a great power, by whatever appeal.

    “…every single worthwhile achievement made by a human on this earth costs in life, effort, sweat and loss.”

    This is just not true. What is the loss involved in the achievement of Brahm’s Requiem? What is the loss of the formulation of Einstein’s theories of Relativity? Neither of these major achievements cost sweat or loss by their nature.

    “Can prayer move God to work in our behalf? Yes and no. Yes he can as long as its within the overall frame of his direction, and no…because globally man is making a mess of ruling himself.”

    That the human race is making a mess of ruling itself speaks nothing about the truth of the proposition that God acts on our prayers or that, even if he did, we don’t acquire a stake in the power he wields through having our prayers answered. If humankind is screwing up, and God answers our prayers it does not mean we don’t acquire a stake in his power just because we were screwing up. And I see no evidence that he has any frame of direction. What is the evidence for this?

    “I could be a good atheist. A very good one. However, I have a God size hole within me that would never be filled unless i continue to take the time to seek him out. Either road is a difficult one because life is difficult.”

    The God shaped hole is a fallacy. Certainly a part of human nature is the tendency to wonder, fascination, emotion and irrationality (e.g. love). Irrational experience is a vital component of who we are, so am not advocating a completely rationalist outlook. But convincing yourself that the suffering of the world can only be ameliorated through filling a God-shaped hole is neither indicative of the hole being there, nor that there’s a God to fit it. Ultimately, you can continue believing that God exists to fit that whole. But it is whimsy. I might believe I have a gold-bullion shaped bank account. Doesn’t mean there’s gold bullion to fit into it. Nor even the account itself. I’d be far more tempted to consider why you think you have a God-shaped hole before you move to try to fill it with anything.

    AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com

    Comment by religionandatheism — June 18, 2007 @ 10:40 am

  4. There’s a further consideration: If it were true that the human race is screwing up (as I think you say and I don’t think you’re wrong on that) and God will answer our prayers by acting using his immense power, then we, a failing and irresponsible species have access to that immense power. That would be terrible! We already can’t be trusted with nuclear weapons. Just imagine what we could do with omnipotence! It is a blessing that God isn’t there to be used by us that way (or at the very least that he doesn’t answer our prayers). If what Christians assert to be true actually were, the world would be a much worse place for it.

    AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com

    Comment by religionandatheism — June 18, 2007 @ 10:45 am

  5. Yo R&A

    Firstly, depends whether you consider Brahms and Einsteins contribution to mankind as an achievement :-)Einsteins theory is already being dismantled by modern theorists. (and in essence, what has it done for mankind?)

    All that aside. I think our mutual starting point is that man has an innate inability to not be in control of his own present or destiny.
    Hence, as you say, “We already can’t be trusted with nuclear weapons.”

    I think one major difference of understanding in our discourse is that WE do not use his omnipotence…..HE uses it for our benefit or not according to HIS will.

    My father was a military man. A very strict disciplinarian. From time to time, when he saw a real desire for something on my part and an earnest effort to obtain it, he would allow my efforts to succeed and help me achieve it. He did NOT give me his power, he gave me his help.

    My God size hole is a reality. I am sorry that others have defined it in a way that even I do not agree with, but it is in all mankind to worship something. History shows worship is the primary goal of all nations…even if it is to worship themselves.

    This is my belief.
    God is the Creator.
    The story of MAnkinds present position is in the Bible.
    He is not part of a trinity.
    Jesus allowed us reconciliation with him.
    There is a timetable.
    There is no eternal hell..you can choose to believe or not.
    Death is the present conclusion of life.
    At some time..it wont be.

    I will die, and so will you. I have a hope and a trust and a belief that at sometime, somewhere there will be a resurrection of ME….to life on earth or wherever…

    Can I prove it? Only through the Bible. Only through my personal relationship with an unseen God with the eyes of faith.

    Is it rational? nope.

    Neither is love, neither is mercy,neither is raising children to endure what we endure.

    In summing up. WE do not have access to immense power, we have access to GOD who decides when and how to use it. He KNOWS us as individuals and as a race, He cannot allow a single human to have a smidgen of his power…

    I believe through choice, and through deep bible research, and through being willing to do what I see as requested by GOd…(and if you read the pages of this blog you will see I (and others)go against the mainstream of christianity doctrines…that I have a spiritual connection to the “truth” of why we are here.

    Its my walk. Its my direction. Its my choice. I dont condemn another human being for their choice. In the end, we will all know whether we are right or wrong.

    Comment by GW staff — June 18, 2007 @ 12:02 pm

  6. On what criteria human behaviour could be judged that Brahms and Einstein would be deemed as not having achieved great things really does boggle the mind. Einstein’s theories of Relativity revolutionised the way space is understood, gave invaluable insights into the nature and fabric of space-time, gravity, the speed of light and opened massive new opportunities for considering time in new and exciting ways. Would, along with Brahms and Einstein, Mozart and Quantum Theory be consigned to your dustbin of under-achievement? Before you ask, the benefit of quantum theory to mankind is that it affords us and understanding of sub-atomic phenomena, from the structure of atoms to the behaviour and transmission effects of electrons and subatomic particles. The results is that we are able to do chemistry better, including designing better and faster computers, better materials, increased efficiency in communications, even in medicine (e.g. radiography), spectroscopy and analytical chemistry… the list just goes on…

    That scientific theories are found to have flaws is not a surprise nor a refutation of the scientific enterprise. All theories are necessarily limited by their axiomatic propositions. Finding scientific theories harder to refute betrays the fact that they are becoming more advanced, better and sophisticated, with more predictive power and greater power of explanation. In contrast, religion has stood still for millennia.

    That we can’t be trusted with nuclear weapons is not necessarily a comment on human nature, but many other factors have influence over this, such as illegitimate power structures, prejudice and a lack of empathy for other people - all of which are reinforced one way or another, leading us to a warped understanding of ourselves and each other. And none of it, before you go down this route, necessitates invoking God as the solution. People are perfectly capable of great deeds and self-management given the chance, and the intervention of a hypothetical benevolent being who is once supernatural, immanent and caring despite the lack of evidence is not required at all. Human problems must be encouraged towards human solutions, not towards fear of an overpowering deity, or fear of eternal hell or the carrot of life after death. This is all a distraction from going into the world and actually doing something beneficial for yourself and other people. And if you’re thinking of saying that religion does do a lot of good for people, remember that that is no evidence that God exists, any more than it is for Zeus, fairies or a square circle. That kind people happen to believe something doesn’t make what they believe merely because they are kind!

    I think we misunderstood each other about the power that God has. I take your point about your father. It’s very elegantly explained. However, consider this: since you appealed to your father and he helped you, you did actually use something he could give you, which he have you because you asked him. That is something he has, that you get to use if he wants to give you it (the help). If you say God answers prayers and he does things for you because you pray, that is the same thing. You ask for something, and he does it, and the net result is that you got something you couldn’t otherwise have had because you asked for it. And if the thing you got could only have been provided by an omnipotent being, you have, in result, influenced an omnipotent power to grant you something merely by asking. That’s all I meant. Your analogy to your father is good, except that he is not omnipotent, although that doesn’t matter for the sake of the point.

    You say that all people worship something. I’m not sure of this. Many people worship something. I don’t know that I worship anything. Certainly I don’t think everyone does. What is your evidence that everybody worships something? How can you separate the historical fact of people worshipping a god of some kind with the fact that it was their cultural heritage to, and that frequently they were unable to escape that influence? Just as I’m sure you wear shoes when you go outside, that does not mean that it is humankind’s instrinsic characteristic: to be compelled to wear shoes. Many people don’t and they’re just fine.

    You use the phrase “Can I prove it? Only through the Bible” at one point. What does that actually mean? That something is in the Bible is not proof at all, unless you’re willing to completely re-work what the word “proof” actually means. You go on to say that it is not rational, and that many other things aren’t (like love). I agree, and we’re together on that one.

    However, you go on to say “I have a spiritual connection to truth”. You know, everyone thinks that. The problem is that they also think something different about what that is. How do you get round that?

    AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com

    Comment by religionandatheism — June 18, 2007 @ 2:13 pm

  7. R&A
    I guess achievement is a value based criteria.

    If’n you dont like music, Brahms is a non starter..

    half the world do not know Einstein and care even less. Does this lessen his observations?

    Half the world do not know the God of the Christian bible and care even less.
    Does this lessen his existence?

    I sit here in my office, surrounded by thousands and thousands of research articles related to my secular career in medicine and my research career in christianity.

    Every 7 years, I find the treatment models and evaluation criteria in psychology requires me to change my text books. Every 7 years the research papers and findings re the Bible history and content remain the same.

    For me. The historical accuracy of the Bible is proof existent of events and places. I have chosen to believe the RELIGIOUS message of the Bible after careful research and study of related criteria. I come from a non believing family.

    There is enough proof in world for acceptance of Christianity and the existence of God. BUT. If a person chooses to not believe, then he sees no proof.

    I see abstracts like love, and kindness and fellow feeling as qualities of a creator. There is no need for them in the realism of existence.

    I have a “spiritual connection to the truth of the Bible”. Im sure most mainstream religious church goers would disagree vehemently with me.

    I cannot convince anyone against their will, for convinced against your will is a man of the same opinion still.

    I Believe in a supernatural Creator, and subscribe to the Bible as his word. I do not subscribe to the TBN or CTN version of christianity.

    I believe in prayer as communication with the creator, and will patiently wait until the outcome he wants comes to pass. For me, going through this life with him is better than being alone and isolated.

    The bottom line is, proof is only proof if its accepted as proof.

    Its all a choice.

    Comment by GW staff — June 18, 2007 @ 4:37 pm

  8. That proof is only such if it is “accepted” by a particular person is nonsense! Proof, please note, is different to evidence and inference and surmising. You cannot opt out of proof as though it were a question of belief. All proofs derive from axiomatic positions, but the proof itself is not subject to negotiation on a faith basis. Take Pythagoras’ Theorem. Are you saying that it can be opted out of, as though “for you” it would not be proof that the square of the hypoteneuse side of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides, if you so chose?

    AT, http://religionandatheism.wordpress.com

    Comment by religionandatheism — June 26, 2007 @ 11:12 pm

  9. Im saying that the flat earth society exists because individuals refuse to accept that the earth is round.

    Im saying that atheism exists because individuals believe in the power of their own created minds rather than acceptance of being a lovingly made offspring of the creative force.

    Im saying that the natural laws of earth exist because of an inherent design module put in place by a vastly intelligent creator.

    Im saying that beauty and morals should not exist in a functional evolutionary pattern of progress.

    At the end of the day, an individual will create his own viewpoint from evidence presented.

    Your nearly right “All proofs derive from axiomatic positions, but the proof itself is not subject to negotiation on a faith basis”………..

    Laws exists because of created boundaries, the boundaries ‘change’ as our understanding and perspective allow for education expansion.

    There is no argument regarding earthly laws of nature or physics. They exist. That is proof of a creative force. Too many “accidents” is not coincidental.

    Do you accept it? No….

    Ergo, proof is only proof if accepted.

    Comment by GW staff — June 27, 2007 @ 5:13 am

  10. [...] Says: June 18th, 2007 at 9:18 am eOf course the rather curious result of thinking an omnipotent God answers our prayers is that in [...]

    Pingback by Atheism versus Belief in God « The Religious Stuff..& all things are possible except skiing through a revolving door — June 27, 2007 @ 5:40 am

  11. For the roundness of the earth there is substantial evidence (e.g. satellite photography, astronomical observations…). Everything else you mention is asserted, not proved. The “natural laws of the earth” you refer to don’t exist except as constructs of the human imagination. They are “laws” only in the sense that we have scientific prescriptions for understanding the behaviour of matter. Matter itself doesn’t behave according to what we write down or decide. Hence these “laws” are really “descriptions” and they belong to us, not to the nature of the universe. Note also that all scientific laws are approximations to within at least the extent of experimental error inherent in all experiments. You can’t use “laws” people wrote down on the basis of their rational observations of the world around them, observations which are limited in their accuracy, as some sort of argument in favour of creation. That is a terribe non-sequitur. Laws don’t “exist” out there somewhere, but on paper and in theory and as approximations. They are not a property of the universe or a creator. You’re not offering a proof of anything, so how can it be rejected? Science, as I’ve already mentioned, is not a process of proof anyway. Science infers and surmises. It does not prove. E=mc^2 is not proved, it is derived. Your line “things exist therefore they were created” is only an assertion and implies all the philosophical difficulties of arguing from first cause. Proofs, are, incidentally, possible. Pythagoras’ theorem is one such example, within the axiomatic boundaries of geometry. On presentation of the theorem it is not negated by somebody’s rejection of it. That in turn would imply the kind of intellectual relativism that would undermine virtually all thought. I could just say “I don’t accept that” to whatever anyone said. Clearly, that does not change the way things are. Nor does saying “Things are created.” No matter how often you do it. You have to offer evidence. We can see the earth is round from space photos. What can we see about the evidence for a creator?
    Note that whatever you come up with, is, at the very best, evidence, not proof (don’t confuse the two words).
    Alternatively, I’ll be happy to hear a logical proof of the creator’s existence. That would certainly be something new.

    Comment by religionandatheism — June 29, 2007 @ 6:12 am

  12. For the roundness of the earth there is substantial evidence (e.g. satellite photography, astronomical observations…).

    (And if I choose to believe that “evidence” is manufactured by The American Government and made in a lab?)

    Everything else you mention is asserted, not proved.

    (All “evidence” is assertation if not accepted.)

    The “natural laws of the earth” you refer to don’t exist except as constructs of the human imagination. They are “laws” only in the sense that we have scientific prescriptions for understanding the behaviour of matter.

    (How is human imagination logical in practice if we are a function biological product of evolution?)

    Matter itself doesn’t behave according to what we write down or decide. Hence these “laws” are really “descriptions” and they belong to us, not to the nature of the universe.

    (Then what we see and observe is really a temporary faulty reality?)

    Note also that all scientific laws are approximations to within at least the extent of experimental error inherent in all experiments. You can’t use “laws” people wrote down on the basis of their rational observations of the world around them, observations which are limited in their accuracy, as some sort of argument in favour of creation.

    (I don’t. I state my observed understanding from the viewpoint of creationism as a logical alternative to happen chance existence. It has equal validity given the fact that we make mental models to explain our reality.)

    That is a terribe non-sequitur. Laws don’t “exist” out there somewhere, but on paper and in theory and as approximations. They are not a property of the universe or a creator.

    (Ok…)

    You’re not offering a proof of anything, so how can it be rejected? Science, as I’ve already mentioned, is not a process of proof anyway.

    (So we agreed then, you cannot offer proof of the absence of God?)

    Science infers and surmises. It does not prove. E=mc2 is not proved, it is derived. Your line “things exist therefore they were created” is only an assertion and implies all the philosophical difficulties of arguing from first cause.

    (And my implied assertation is a philosophical debate?)

    Proofs, are, incidentally, possible. Pythagoras’ theorem is one such example, within the axiomatic boundaries of geometry. On presentation of the theorem it is not negated by somebody’s rejection of it. That in turn would imply the kind of intellectual relativism that would undermine virtually all thought.

    I could just say “I don’t accept that” to whatever anyone said. Clearly, that does not change the way things are.

    (Yes you can. A mathematical formula is just one way of arriving at a pre determined answer by following algerbraic observations of how numbers interact within a preset combination. If a person determined the end figure was not accurate enough in fractions and whole numbers, there would be another route to get the correct answer. In their mind, they would believe Pythagoras theorem was innacurate.)

    Nor does saying “Things are created.” No matter how often you do it. You have to offer evidence. We can see the earth is round from space photos. What can we see about the evidence for a creator?

    (Well the same logic applies here, Earth exists, to our best knowledge it is round and sustains life…. Evidentially, it is in effect. Proof of creation? That is where I again point to my comment…what will you accept? Design? Interaction? Life? Reasoning? Speech ability? Animals? The list would go on from my pc but at what point am I wasting your time?)

    Note that whatever you come up with, is, at the very best, evidence, not proof (don’t confuse the two words).
    Alternatively, I’ll be happy to hear a logical proof of the creator’s existence. That would certainly be something new.

    (I don’t confuse the words. But I seriously doubt that viewpoints change without a shifting of observation points. Ifn you don’t want to see a God in your Life, and your axis of reference is tilted toward atheism, then …. Well then…. Proof and evidence will interchange as and when. )

    Comment by GW staff — June 29, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.