Quote:
Originally Posted by kirant
One part that I heard in detail and disagreed with is how a theist would pray to their god. One of the commentators (I don't know which one in specific, as again I wasn't watching, just listening) mentions that you can test a faith by looking at whether or not prayer works. I didn't catch the preceding section and may be acting without some knowledge (he mentions something "Randy" stated), but this snippet strikes me as a bit odd. The distinction between a non-acting god and a god that actively listens and participates in individual's prayers wasn't made. In this train of thought and measurement, the possibility that god doesn't act based on prayer is treated as impossibility. I haven't read the Bible in a while, but I do wonder if it's actually even stated in there that god will, without a doubt, answer your prayer if you have been a loyal follower. Either way, the test would be whether or not a god that acts based on faith based requests is tested, not on the existence of a god as a whole (which only happens if we can make the assumption that if a god exists, it will act on these requests). If we narrow the concept to a single type of god, one that must act on all forms of prayer, then we may see results that don't support a hypothesis...but the concept and the definition of a supreme being doesn't necessarily lock in all those terms from my understanding.
|
The reason that distinction wasn't made is because they were talking about theists, not
deists. The difference between deism and theism is that deists don't believe in a personal and intervening god, while theists do. They didn't mention that difference because it wasn't relevant.
As for the part of god acting on faith-based requests,
given only faith, mountains can be moved. Seems legit.