Author Topic: Yet another idiotic refutation of WWGHA  (Read 853 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3894
  • Darwins +258/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Yet another idiotic refutation of WWGHA
« on: August 27, 2013, 12:54:07 PM »

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2010/12/why-im-soured-on-the-idea-of-praying-to-a-jug-of-milk/

The relevant part
Quote
He came to the conclusion that the likelihood of his prayer being answered was directly proportional to the likelihood that the event would occur without prayer. “To adjust for this, as I got older, I started to ask for things I was more likely to get…help on homework, etc “.

The most offensive part of the video, yet also the most foolish, was to compare praying to God with praying to milk. When Christians discuss answers to prayer, they do often suggest God always answers prayer, and that answers can be “Yes”, “No” or “Wait.” Redford says the answers would be identical, if one were to pray to milk.  He really thinks he’s got us now.

Suppose you pray to milk for a $1000.  And somehow, you get a check in the mail the next day for about a $1000. Obviously, it was just a coincidence because milk doesn’t answer prayer.  Voila! says Redford, it is just a coincidence when the Christian claims that God has heard his prayer.

This is nonsense.  But suppose I, as a young college student, email my mother, and ask her to wash my socks.   Perhaps my mother will wash my socks today.  Maybe she will wait a couple of weeks.  Maybe she will not wash them at all.   I get home two days later and my socks are washed.  Coincidence?  Hardly.   Now suppose I ask milk to wash my socks.  And my socks turned up washed.  Since it is obvious to all that milk can’t wash socks, I am forced to the obvious conclusion.   If I am an atheist, I will suggest that my mother doesn’t exist.

Redford has made the blunder of mistaking an illustration with evidence.  The jug of milk analogy demonstrates the viewpoint of its creator but is no evidence about whether God answers prayer.  It is a red herring.  Just as my illustration about the mother does not prove that God answers prayer, it only illustrates it.

It matters that you pray to a God that exists.  Praying to a milk jug is to pray to an idol.  Redford was not praying in faith to the true and living God, but a God of his own making: The vending machine god.

There is a reason Christians present the notion of answers to prayer in such a simplistic way.  It is precisely because God is sovereign, good, and omniscient. Let’s go back to the mother and socks.  There are a host of other possibilities when mothers are involved.  First, the mother could miss the email.  Second, she could get the email and forget to do, what she was actually willing to do.  Third, the washer could be broken down and she could be incapable of washing the socks.  Fourth, someone else could read the email and wash the socks.

Another problem with the analogy of praying to milk for $1000 is that it treats God as some cosmic vending machine whose primary purpose is to “answer” such selfish prayers.  Or worse yet, it treats God as some servant of man’s who must answer on the whim of man.   Redford’s view of prayer is a caricature of the Biblical view.  There are many reasons God does not “answer” man’s prayers, some of which have been alluded to already.  Redford at one point in the video shows an article purporting to debunk
The portion after is really just a big "No true Scotman" and an appeal to ignorance, so I will dispense with it.


It seems a valid attempt to the praying for the jug of milk thing.  However washed socks are not proof your mother exists. Prayer, however, is supposed to demonstrate the power of Yahweh. He just is using a buried appeal to ignorance.

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1780
  • Darwins +88/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: Yet another idiotic refutation of WWGHA
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2013, 01:15:57 PM »
The washed socks may not be proof that the mother exists, but if this person directly asks his mother, then goes back to the house where they apparently both live (or maybe he has dropped the socks off for her at her place), and finds his socks washed, that adds up to a whole lot more concrete interaction than anyone ever gets with prayer.

To go back to another analogy, if he asked his mother for money, then the next day received a check from Publisher's Clearing House, would he automatically think that his mother had somehow finagled that?

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Yet another idiotic refutation of WWGHA
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2013, 01:42:12 PM »
My garden rock has a better track record than a milk jug! Heretics!!!   :laugh:
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Yet another idiotic refutation of WWGHA
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2013, 03:45:03 PM »
The Milkjug's wrath is swift and terrible.  The author of that cranky essay, David Shedlock, had a stroke. 
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2012/12/pray-for-david-shedlock/

Still in a wheelchair, with complications and jesus H aint even helping pay the bills.
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2013/01/update-on-david-shedlock-help-requested/

cue Edward G Robinson voice "where's your messiah now?"
 
Fall before the All Powerful Milkjug and despair!
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12525
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Yet another idiotic refutation of WWGHA
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2013, 04:10:16 PM »
I'm drinking Chocolate Milk...coincidence? I think not!

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Yet another idiotic refutation of WWGHA
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2013, 04:12:22 PM »

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2010/12/why-im-soured-on-the-idea-of-praying-to-a-jug-of-milk/

The relevant part of the link:
Quote
He came to the conclusion that the likelihood of his prayer being answered was directly proportional to the likelihood that the event would occur without prayer. “To adjust for this, as I got older, I started to ask for things I was more likely to get…help on homework, etc “.
[...]
This is nonsense.  But suppose I, as a young college student, email my mother, and ask her to wash my socks.   Perhaps my mother will wash my socks today.  Maybe she will wait a couple of weeks.  Maybe she will not wash them at all.  [...]

The final words of the blog are "Comments are closed." ... there were no comments. So much for the popularity of his philosophy.

From "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce (whose great grand-daughter I once met.)

PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.

REVELATION, n. A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing.

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1658
  • Darwins +66/-0
  • Polyatheist
Re: Yet another idiotic refutation of WWGHA
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2013, 05:41:47 PM »
So, where do I need to drop off my socks for cleaning then?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.