I saw the edit, but I don't have anything more to add.

Fair enough. It seems my reply was probably a bit of overkill.

No, my initial statements are still correct.  People are asking God for something in prayer, and they wouldnt be doing so if they didnt want it and think it could be provided.

Your ideas on dicoveries is misguided, and simple life experience make this blatantly apparent.  No one wants to rediscover things or invent things that are meaningless.  No one is trying to discover electricity, this has already been done.  No one is trying to invent the radio, this has already been done.  So what are people trying to invent and discover?  New things that are improvements that have meaning.  People working on discoveries with electricity are trying find new ways to use it, people working with radios innovations are trying to improve them in some way.

First Paragraph:

Lets reach an end of the discussion by very simply adhering to logical arguments. 

You keep focusing on the intent of a speculated individual's prayer to make your argument.  This is demonstrably faulty logic because the intentions of an individual cannot be demonstrated as a fact here and because an individual is not necessarily representative of anything but themselves.  Arguments based on the intentions of an individual are based on speculation and supposition about their intentions without authority and are therefor unreliable. Your argument on this matter is unquestionably illogical.

By the law of identity A is A and thus lazy people are lazy.  This is true regardless of whether they justify that laziness with their politics or their religion, the fact is they are simply lazy and this is not proof of any connection between their views and their work ethic.  As such there is no established link between politics or religion and laziness. If you have research that shows otherwise then post it.

Religions on the other hand can be reviewed independently and unlike speculating on intentions cannot be revised at the whim of either of us.  So my challenge to you is to name a single religion that tells its people that by praying for something they will be entitled to recieve it. 

Second Paragraph:

This paragraph is an incoherent argument.  Specifically the following sentence which is the basis for your entire comment:

"No one wants to rediscover things or invent things that are meaningless."

This discussion is not about whether people want to discover meaningless things, but about whether discoveries are made meaningless simply because god discovered them first (but did not share them). So if anyone is misguided in this discussion it is yourself. 

You've yet to make an argument of why god's existence would remove the meaning of invention and discovery from our lives.

You keep calling my argument ignorant and incoherent, but there is nothing wrong with them more than your inability to argue against them.  Instead of saying oh this point A is wrong, you should try to say why point A is wrong.  Instead, you say this is ignorant, this is incoherent, this is ignorant, when the fact of the matter is that the only stupid person here is you.

Bible verses where people ask God for things and are expected to recieve them:

John 14:13-14
And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.

John 15:7
If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

James 1:5
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

Zechariah 10:1
Ask the LORD for rain in the time of the latter rain. The LORD will make flashing clouds; He will give them showers of rain, Grass in the field for everyone. 

My statement on discoveries was "No one wants to rediscover things or invent things that are meaningless."  This is absolutely true, no one wants to discover or invent things that are meaningless.  Why would a pharmacist try to come up with new drugs in Heaven because there is no illness, why would a agricultural engineer try to develop new methods of farming when the food supply is infinite, why would a physicist try to discover a sustainable method of nuclear fusion when there is infinite energy?

I'm going to give you a hint here, simply because I am growing tired of your ignorant posts.  Explain to me why a research pharmacist should develop drugs in Heaven.

This is flawed. Let's say i pray everyday for something(lets just say that i have the flu and pray to get better). I don't get well until 2 weeks later and i instantly think that God must have healed me when it was your immune system and medication. When most pray, they pray for things that are obviously going to happen, and even when those prayers aren't "answered", people claim it wasn't God's will. It's a Catch 22.

"Explain to me why a research pharmacist should develop drugs in Heaven."

For fun.

I don't mind the delayed response too much, I've recently become INSANELY busy.

"Sorry, what?"

     It may help to remind you what I was responding to:  "What I’m trying to communicate is that justification in epistemology amounts to “establishing” that which it already essentially is. This is contrary to establishing that which it was not [...]"

     What I said was that having been justified is a change of essence from the perspective the person who has justified it, so a true belief is not already (before justification) essentially that which it is after justification.  Obviously it was true before, and let's say we believed it to be true, but now we've established that it's true.  The truth of it did not change; the belief (we're saying) did not change; a third aspect changed (from "not justified (by me)" to "justified").  

"It is the essential “characteristic” of knowledge, or rather, what makes a ‘belief’ knowledge of which I am talking about when I call knowledge fundamental: Certainty (indubitable). Saying knowledge is a mix of ‘truth’ and ‘belief’ is really just something that is displaced in a manner I don’t want to go into articulating (It has something to do with the difference between talking about knowledge as if it were outside of the mind and knowledge being a state one is in. There’s also another thing in my mind to articulate but I don’t want to get into it.) I agreed to the ‘combination’ previously in a sense for avoiding a possibly irrelevant or untimely clarification."

     This is borderline gibberish to me.  You seem to be saying, "Calling it 'belief and truth' is misguided for reasons I don't feel like going into AT ALL.  Also, I misled you earlier when I agreed to that description," without saying explicitly whether you are rejecting truth as a separate condition.  Is that anywhere near the mark?  
     For the record, I would say that knowledge is a state (one is in the state of knowing X) (perhaps this will help you understand the above point about justification) but truth is outside of the mind.  (Knowledge requires a mind; without, or outside of, a mind there is only truth.)  Thus the difficulties presented by requiring truth as a condition of knowledge.  

"The lack of the capability for doubt is what you categorize under the word belief? Sorry, that’s what I mean by knowledge though. If I accepted your use of that word I’d just specify that I’m talking about the ‘particular’ within your ‘category’ which I would call knowledge."

     The only way I can see to read this is that the ONE AND ONLY requirement of knowledge (in this method of acquiring it) is that one not be capable of doubting it.  
     This would mean that one of the following is true:  (1) knowledge (in your definition) is not necessarily of things (not beliefs -- your def'n.) that are true; (2) [edit:  some agent(s) or agency(-ies) (possibly including the nature of (indubitable) certainty?) either makes it possible for one to be certain of at least some true things (but that is not the case for any false things), or makes it impossible for one to be certain of any false things (but that is not the case for at least some true things), or makes it impossible to not be certain of at least some true things (but that is not the case for any false things)]; (3) if one is in a state of certainty (being incapable of doubt of a thing), that makes it true.  
     I realize that the second part was somewhat complicated, but it is my vain hope that it was not complicated in a confusing way (if read carefully) and that -- just once! -- there will be no failure of communication.  
     [edit:  old version of the second possibility in the second paragraph:  'some things have the nature of preventing us from conceiving doubt of those things (or other things?), but this is only the case with things* that are true' / '*The "those things (or other things?)" things.'  Hopefully the new version is better and/or less likely to be found confusing.]

"Likewise, the capability for doubt is a characteristic of what I mean by the word belief."

     To you the term "belief" can only refer to what I might call "doubtable belief" -- good to know.
     I see dubitability and indubitability both as reference to belief.  It is a reference to the state of mind of us having an opinion of something.  Dubitability is simply there being a possibility of us thinking, "could I be wrong?" and indubitability is (also simply) the impossibility of that.  I do not think that either of those states can affect whether the opinion is actually in accord with the truth.  

"I have no problem if you consider “absolute belief” a synonym for indubitability…"

     Nice.

"Realize that you’ll need to make a more articulate distinction by way of definition as this here only appears to find different words to refer to what I’m referring to."

     Using "absolute belief" was simply part of a demonstration of how I feel that "indubitability" is not actually separate from belief (my def'n.) as you think it is.  Absolute belief, to me, is simply a different type of belief, one that cannot be doubted but one that does not actually supply knowledge, by any definition that has truth as a necessary condition.  (See above response to "The lack of ...".)  

"First, well, being absolutely certain of something (what I am using as synonymous with ‘being indubitable) is what I find epistemology has been after (certainly a description from Descartes when he introduced his ‘methodological doubt’). So that’s what I’m talking about when I speak of knowledge."

     Hah!  Well, in that case, IMO, certainty would be one of those "necessary but not sufficient" deals.  (See above response to "The lack of ...".)

"Ok if you feel that way. Not saying it is intentional of course. My purpose in saying it was for clarifying my perception of what’s happening in your position (in hopes you might recognize it but whatever)."

     I ... look, you're saying I'm being intellectually dishonest, and you can say "now don't take this the wrong way" all day long but it doesn't change what you're suggesting.  Not saying you shouldn't call people out on shit they try to pull (even unconsciously or inadvertently) but don't pretend you're not accusing them of anything.  Because you are.  If I say someone has misspelled a word, I'm ACCUSING them of misspelling.  And I'm right.  And sometimes they get indignant.  But I'm still right.  In this case I'm insulted, and say you're wrong.  

"I understand the individual words, just not what they’re referring to together. Since my understanding of the meaning of justification obviously makes it literally nonsense. This isn’t an instance of me saying it’s not possible in our particular reality – because, as I’ve said before, this is an analytical issue (Wherein I say what I say about justification on the basis of definition.) So I’m just waiting for some explanation that shows something else to it or where I catch a different meaning your referring to."

     Well ... so you are saying that if the meanings of the words are what you think they are, then I, as an at least somewhat rational person, could not mean that when I said those words?  Would it be too much to ask you to take a look at my previous posts (relevant to that point) and take a stab at what you think I did mean (or might have meant)?  

P.S.  I thought about reorganizing the quotes so that I could put three in particular next to each other (I'm sure you can guess which), but I wasn't sure it was necessary.  If you like, go ahead and pretend I did.   

It may be meaningless IN HEAVEN, but who says it's meaningless period?  Does mortal life not even count?  

this de-baptism thing seems ridiculous to me...... if you don't believe in God, that's fine, but what purpose would getting your baptism revoked serve? can't you just ignore the fact that you were baptised? it isn't like this will change anything....