Prayer, psychologically speaking, is a matter of harnessing our language center in the brain and applying it to desires that cannot be verbalized. As such, it is just an extension of a baby’s wailing because that’s the best an infant can do to communicate – as we gain words, we switch from wailing to talking to express desires.
Though I will note that even if glossalalia is purely psychological, if it is directed at God it still counts as prayer because while even I may not know the contents of my desires, He does.
The brains of babies are also hypertuned to learn sounds and languages at those ages. At no time in the rest of our lives are we able to learn language as easily and as quickly as when we are babies and young children.
2 Likes
Yeah im finding myself agreeing with you there…a financial ponzy scheme for me is evidence of the error in this O.P.
This is a Video of Michael Egnor trying to explain the existence of the Soul. I think the soul is Energy, people drink Energy Drinks. People drink The Spirits of Alcohol to be Spiritual with soul. Buffalo Springfield (Steven Stills) song “Bluebird” has a line “She’s got Soul”. I think the Soul is Your Will and is Energy.
Einstein’s equation E=MC(Squared) indicates Energy and Mass are interchangeable Mass = E/C(Squared) C is the Speed of Light.
Energy can be transformed like what happens in a Electric Transformer. Electric Energy is transfered to Electro-Magnetic and then back to Electric.
Since Einstein’s indicates Mass and Energy are interchangeable. I think this is what happened to Lott’s Wife. Her Spirit Energy was converted to Mass as a Pillar of Salt.
This means to me My Soul can be transferred to somewhere or go nowhere as Mass.
Does science prove the existence of the soul? Here award-winning neurosurgeon Michael Egnor explores the evidence.
Many scientists and doctors believe that there is no such thing as the soul. That there is no part of us that persists beyond death. We are not spiritual in any respect. We are made up of cells and tissue, and completely controlled by a material organ in our heads: the brain. In this groundbreaking book, Dr. Michael Egnor makes the case—based on 40 years of practice and over 7,000 brain surgeries—that science has gotten it all wrong.
Dr. Egnor is author with science writer Denyse O’Leary of the forthcoming book The Immortal Mind: A Neurosurgeon’s Case for the Existence of the Soul (Worthy Books, June 2025). Right now if you pre-order the book you can also get a free download of the anthology Minding The Brain with 25 chapters from 23 authors exploring the mind-body problem from various perspectives, integrating insights from philosophy, neuroscience, psychology, and quantum theory. Go to https://theimmortalmin… to get your free perks for pre-ordering.
============================
Are you interested in the origins of life and the universe? Get this free book and explore the debate between Darwinian evolution and intelligent design. If you’re intrigued by the origins of life, this is a must-read. It might change the way you view our world.
As a special gift from the director of the CSC, Dr. Stephen Meyer, you can download his 32-page mini-book Scientific Evidence for a Creator for FREE: https://evolutionnews…
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube channel of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit:
https://www.discovery…
https://evolutionnews…
https://intelligentdes…
Follow us:
X: / discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Instagram: / discoverycsc
TikTok: / discoverycsc
Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer
1 Like
There are also Christians like me who don’t believe in such a thing either, thinking this is something from Greek philosophy and other religions.
Well I do believe in something that persists beyond death, so obviously there is some semantics involved. What I don’t believe in is some non-physical part of us which inhabits our body making it alive and or a person. I think being both alive and a person comes entirely from our physical structure and natural processes.
I believe in a spiritual aspect of our existence but something outside the space and time of the physical universe, and the relationship looks to be practically epiphenomenal (i.e. the causality going one way from the physical to the spiritual).
Well that is another point on which I disagree. I think life is a process of self-organization and it can occur in non-biological mediums (i.e. other than in the medium of biochemical reactions). In particular I believe in a human mind quite distinct from the brain with its own life and inheritance passed on to the next generation in the medium of human language. Obviously this is quite dependent on the brain and also a completely physical/natural phenomenon (i.e. with nothing supernatural about it).
IOW I think Dr. Egnor has it all wrong. There is nothing immortal about the human mind. This is Greek philosophy particularly Plato and the Gnostics and I certainly do not agree.
I have been interested in this for a long time, but I will stick to science and the Bible, thank you very much. The origin of the universe is creation by God. The origin of life is abiogenesis and the origin of the species is evolution. But neither of these last two occur in vacuum but very much in relationship to an environment which can include a teacher (or shepherd). God created the universe for a relationship and thus I think He is very much involved in all its events – no not in control of everything but involved, so when it comes to life, living things make their own decisions and thus create in partnership with God.
I am a scientist and I expect science to answer many question like the origin of life. But my experience with science is that it is entirely married to the concepts of space and time as a basis of all its measurable quantities. Thus I do not believe science has any capability of going beyond the space and time of the physical universe even though it is well aware there is nothing absolute about these things (space and time) but that they are very much a part of the structure of the physical universe itself.
Mass is a form of energy. Everything is a form of energy and is interchangeable with other forms of energy, but not everything has mass.
No. Energy is a conserved quantity on observable time scales. It may be able to interact with things outside the physical universe but it doesn’t go anywhere. I see no reason to believe there are magical exceptions where the laws by which the physical universe operates are set aside. Obviously this has considerable impact on my understanding of Christianity.
2 Likes
My only caveat there is that if Christ led the way, then how does one reconcile that with Christs “physical ressurection and physical ascention into heaven?
He was clearly not a spirit in any of those parts of the narrative.
Im preempting a return criticism that he appeared among them in the upper room before saying to Thomas “put you hand in my side”
my answer that that would be…God isnt limited by the physical or the immaterial, meanng He can make the physical exist in any dimension. However Christ is also physical nonetheless.
How else could He demonstrate it?
If the reality is beyond our human perception, how could He demonstrate that?
Richard
The occurrence is not confirmed in History, so You have to Believe it or not. (Jack Palance Show)
That is not the point.
The point is that the nature or our resurrection does not have to match the physical one of Christ. All we need to know is that there is one.
Richard
Tune in for next week’s episode of “Poe’s Law”. 
2 Likes
Excellent point and my answer is,
He demonstrates that through the illustrations in thr Biblical narrative. Those who wrote about Him in the New Testament recorded His physical birth, physical ministry on earth, physical torture and death, physical resurrection, and physical ascention into heaven.
What we read is that our creator, who the writer John in his gospel chapter 1:1 names, is personal, comes close to and interracts with us, did not do any of this from afar.
Genesis tells us, God came close and breathed the breath of life into Adams nostrils and then he became a living person. I would argue one doesnt bring a cell to life by brewthing into nostrils…cells dont have nostrils…so how did cells come to life in order to evolve according to darwinian theory?
This means either ANE is fundamentally wrong or the bible is fundamentally wrong.
Given the bible is our only means of salvation (rev 14.12 is specific when defining saints), my choice is to only follow the bible. There is no hint of the gospel and salvation in Darwinian theory.
Oje cant follow a gospel where the very model Christ lived/fulfilled that explains salvation (narrative of Moses, the Exodus, and in particular the Old Testament tabernacle) is a fairytale story. If Moses and the tabernacle are a fairytale, because genesis crewtioj and the flood arent real (they are just tales/lessons teaching morailty) then the logical conclusion is the same…it ends the same as it begins, salvation is nothing more than a fairytale story about morality.
You really have no clue what ANE stands for, do you?
Hint: it has nothing to do with “darwinian theory”.
What an incredible non-sequitur!
And based on false assumptions at that!
2 Likes
To quote someone else.
You have missed the point
The Nature or of heaven is not illustrated in Scripture except by analogy.
Richard
Not according to the Bible.
Here’s a song I hate:
“Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so…”
It should be “…for the GOSPEL tells me so…” In the scriptures, people come to God without having anything written, without even having a covenant beyond “I will be loyal to Yahweh”.
Besides that, the Bible itself says that Christ is our only means of salvation, not a book.
Why do you spend so much effort talking to yourself? No one else here calls anything in the Bible a “fairytale story”.
That is written in Scripture, and Scripture is a book. Well, strictry speaking it is a collection of books, but lets not split anymore hairs than we have to.
You know that Christ is part of the Trinity. So why do you keep separating Jesus apart?
God is the omly means of Salvation.
It is a shame that you and so many are obsessed with Salvation
RIchard
I would like to recommend Edward Feser’s Five Proofs for the Existence of God to you. The way you phrased your argument leads to a lot of room for legit criticism which so many were happy to supply. If someone were to try to steel man your argument, it could become more cogent if cast in terms of a larger argument from desire. Many caricatures and misunderstandings of this argument exist online (from both sides) as well but there are some very strong formulations of it and I suppose a propensity for prayer or communication with the divine can be likened to hunger, thirst etc. This argument would require a lot of leg work and a very careful formulation, however.
Maybe you simply want to say you’ve had an experience with God and therefore, beyond any human words and arguments, this life-changing event is proof for you. Kind of a “if you know you know” position? I think many Christians are in that boat as well. As CS Lewis pointed out, being at the ocean and experiencing it is a lot more “real” than looking at a map or picture of it.
Vinnie
2 Likes
@LikeHim, I wouldn’t bother with Feser unless you want to practice spotting flaws. His ‘proofs’ are updated versions of the ‘proofs’ from Aristotle, Aquinas etc, and suffer from the same issues - they prove that something had to exist, but don’t prove it (i) still exists, (ii) was unique, or (iii) is in any way related to the god of the Bible.
I am claiming because I Know I and or We have the ability to Pray. Why would I have this ability if I am able to utilize it to Who? To me it must be to someone who it connects to like our phones. George Harrison song “Hear Me Lord” indicates He’s Praying. The only answer is praying must have been put in US to be able to communicate to someone other than each other Humans. Therefore because of this Premise of Prayer being True, God(or whatever you want to call this Being) must exist.
Praying is just talking to an invisible but perceived recipient. it is no real difference from any other sort of communication. We do not (have to) vocalise because of the intrinsic belief of what we are doing.
I am guessing that when people prayed to the moon or the sun it was always vocal. Silent prayer might be an evolution, if that is not swearing.
Richard
1 Like
Good question.
What exactly do you mean by ‘pray’? Is it to form mental requests aimed another being?
I can form mental (or aural!) requests aimed at anyone, real or imaginary.
If praying means that God exists, being able to send radio messages into space must mean aliens exist, being able to shine lasers at empty buildings must mean there are actually people in them, and being able to shout at clouds must mean cloud-fairies exist.
Building a communications device doesn’t require there be some-one to communicate with.