Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

[unknown soldier]

If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:

1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.

I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.

Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."

I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!

Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.

Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?

Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?

[TRANSPONDER]

What enables a species to survive and prosper is what is good for the species.

How do we judge what it means to “prosper”? There are different ideas of prospering. Those who forced sterilization on certain segments of the population did it in the name of prospering the human race. As far as survival goes, there is so much complexity and unknown, that how do we know what will help a species survive better than alternative choices?

It is the most 'objective' good that you are going to get. It would do no good to insist that you want more objective good and bad than that. There isn't one.

There is not a sliding scale of objectivity. It’s either objective or it’s not.

And I already said that Biblical or Theist objective morality, based on the religion is not objective but the opinions of the religious or their gods. Just saying to dispose of that, even if you weren't going to argue from that point.

The moral claims in the Bible or any other code, religious or secular, are beliefs or opinions, yes. That doesn’t mean they can’t match objective truth. I am of the opinion that the Earth is not flat. It’s also objectively true that the Earth is not flat.

I think you misunderstand what the existence of a Creator God means for the objectivity of our morality. If God exists and created humans for a purpose, then that God would know what is objectively good for humans. That God’s view of how humans should act would be objectively true.

And I think morality and ethics are demonstrably better. Education, individual rights, respect for others, concern for other species and our environment, living conditions, even animals welfare. These things were unheard of when I was a kid. It is true - only too true - that they aren't always observed. But they are moral progress that has been made.

If morality is not objective, then these things logically cannot be objectively better. If they are objectively better, then morality is objective. Evolution cannot give us objective morality, however.

That's not the point. The point is what is the objective in the basis of human morality. I argued (as others do that I cribbed my apologetic from) that it is the survival and prospering of the human species. How best to do that is the 'relative' aspect which is a fair point. The value of a relative morality is that it allows for discussion and changing the mind about what is to the betterment of humans and what is not, even if once we thought it was.

[Goat]

1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Why should morality be objective? That is, any more than a consensus of ethical codes that are open to revision but with human welfare as the best objective basis we have? Evolutionary in being instinct at base and social evolution to deal with an increasingly complex society. You seem to be demanding that there is some unshakeable reliable moral law that never changes and is never open to question, but (I'd argue is the reality) there isn't one. We have to make the best of the situation that life gives us. Just because it seems less good to you than a perfect being issuing a perfect law, that is not what we have. Certainly the horrors and fallacious morals of the Bible aren't it. And Christianity makes it worse by insisting that it can't be changed, all the while quietly changing it to keep pace with human morals.

I see nothing fail more than the attempt to argue from Biblical morality.

I haven’t argued from Biblical morality and have said nothing about the history of Christian morality. Fine topics, but irrelevant to my arguments.

I do believe morality is objectively true, that it never changes (regardless of how human moral views change), and so isn’t “open to question” in that sense, although I believe we have free will to question and disagree with it.

I’m unclear if you are saying your view is still “objective” or if you are saying it’s “subjective” and “what’s wrong with that”? If you can clarify that, I can respond further.

There are problems with these assumptions. 1) You can not show that the premise P1 is true.
2) You can now show the premise P2 is true.
3) Since you can not show that either P1 or P2 is true, and there is no way to test to see if the conclusion is true, the entire structure of logic breaks down. The form might be valid, but you can not show the the syllogism is sound.

In fact, the chose of P1 and P2 seems to be an attempt to arrives at the conclusion P3. It looks like the conclusion is chosen, and then there was an attempt to work backwards to reach that conclusion. That makes the attempt at reasoning fail.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
The moral claims in the Bible or any other code, religious or secular, are beliefs or opinions, yes.
...

Fair nuff.

I think you misunderstand what the existence of a Creator God means for the objectivity of our morality. If God exists and created humans for a purpose, then that God would know what is objectively good for humans. That God’s view of how humans should act would be objectively true.

Not so.

If God thinks it's good I stone me folks to death, he can kiss my fourth point of contact.

It may be true he wants that, it ain't necessarily true that's a good thing to do.

This is kinda the problem we have when folks worship gods who can't be shown to have an opinion on various issues of morality. We get stuck with that person's opinion on what's good or not.

If morality is not objective, then these things logically cannot be objectively better. If they are objectively better, then morality is objective. Evolution cannot give us objective morality, however.

Nor can the Christian.

[TRANSPONDER]

1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Why should morality be objective? That is, any more than a consensus of ethical codes that are open to revision but with human welfare as the best objective basis we have? Evolutionary in being instinct at base and social evolution to deal with an increasingly complex society. You seem to be demanding that there is some unshakeable reliable moral law that never changes and is never open to question, but (I'd argue is the reality) there isn't one. We have to make the best of the situation that life gives us. Just because it seems less good to you than a perfect being issuing a perfect law, that is not what we have. Certainly the horrors and fallacious morals of the Bible aren't it. And Christianity makes it worse by insisting that it can't be changed, all the while quietly changing it to keep pace with human morals.

I see nothing fail more than the attempt to argue from Biblical morality.

I haven’t argued from Biblical morality and have said nothing about the history of Christian morality. Fine topics, but irrelevant to my arguments.

I do believe morality is objectively true, that it never changes (regardless of how human moral views change), and so isn’t “open to question” in that sense, although I believe we have free will to question and disagree with it.

I’m unclear if you are saying your view is still “objective” or if you are saying it’s “subjective” and “what’s wrong with that”? If you can clarify that, I can respond further.

There are problems with these assumptions. 1) You can not show that the premise P1 is true.
2) You can now show the premise P2 is true.
3) Since you can not show that either P1 or P2 is true, and there is no way to test to see if the conclusion is true, the entire structure of logic breaks down. The form might be valid, but you can not show the the syllogism is sound.

In fact, the chose of P1 and P2 seems to be an attempt to arrives at the conclusion P3. It looks like the conclusion is chosen, and then there was an attempt to work backwards to reach that conclusion. That makes the attempt at reasoning fail.

Totally. Axiomatically Logical constructs can be false if the premise is unsound. And the assumption that morality cannot exist without God, is the basically flawed premise I keep banging on about - the assumption that a god exists, that it gives us morality ("Written on our hearts") and on top of that, that it is the god of a particular religion. The whole syllogism is so biased that it is totally illogical.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
The moral claims in the Bible or any other code, religious or secular, are beliefs or opinions, yes.
...

Fair nuff.

I think you misunderstand what the existence of a Creator God means for the objectivity of our morality. If God exists and created humans for a purpose, then that God would know what is objectively good for humans. That God’s view of how humans should act would be objectively true.

Not so.

If God thinks it's good I stone me folks to death, he can kiss my fourth point of contact.

It may be true he wants that, it ain't necessarily true that's a good thing to do.

This is kinda the problem we have when folks worship gods who can't be shown to have an opinion on various issues of morality. We get stuck with that person's opinion on what's good or not.

If morality is not objective, then these things logically cannot be objectively better. If they are objectively better, then morality is objective. Evolution cannot give us objective morality, however.

Nor can the Christian.

This is a valuable discussion because (though I say that the argument from morality was put to bed a decade ago) it is still being wagged about as though it was valid - like Kalam. (1)

Evolution can and arguably demonstrably does, tell us where morality comes from and what is the 'objective basis' such as it is. We already knew that a dictator saying what it moral is merely someone's opinion which is not objective morality at all, in any logically meaningful sense. It was known (a decade ago) that morality and ethics either exists objectively (in which case it doesn't need a god) or it is purely what the god says it is, in which case there is no objective morality, only the god's opinion. Name your own, because it could have been written on our hearts by Allah, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl, for all we know. The assumption that we are only ever talking about the God of the King James Bible and 7,000 preselected saved (or whichever sect one belongs to) skews the whole premise.

The recent (of many many previous) discussion on slavery is the significant apologetic here. If slavery was permissible (even grudgingly) in the Bible and these days it isn't, then morality is at least alterable, not to say relative. Which is why apologists have to try to pretend that Biblical slavery was not slavery or that slavery is or was actually ok because we are all slaves to there being 24 hours in a day. When were our opinions consulted on how long a day should be?!! 60 minutes in an hour is oppression!! Take to the streets! To the barricades!! No, in that and many other cases, human ethics has moved on and generally for the better. And Americans ought to know as Monarchy was once considered God - given and to fight a war of independence was tantamount to rebellion against God. That of course was only British Morality, not God's.

(1) depending on whether Kalam is used to validate the god -claim or not. It has been argued that Kalam does Not postulate a god, only a Cause.

[The Tanager]

1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

In fact, the chose of P1 and P2 seems to be an attempt to arrives at the conclusion P3. It looks like the conclusion is chosen, and then there was an attempt to work backwards to reach that conclusion. That makes the attempt at reasoning fail.

Every argument must be worded to work together. The conclusion rests on the logical form and the truth of the premises, whatever reason one had in forming an argument. You’ve agreed the form is logically valid. So, the only question is whether the premises are most plausibly true. I’ve shared why I believe the premises are more reasonably true than the alternative.


P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

The assumption that we are only ever talking about the God of the King James Bible and 7,000 preselected saved (or whichever sect one belongs to) skews the whole premise.

I have made no assumption. My argument says nothing of what this God is supposedly like or which religion is true, etc. This is a clear straw man. Address the actual premise with all critiques.

There are problems with these assumptions. 1) You can not show that the premise P1 is true.

I’ve shared why I think atheistic evolution leads to subjectivism. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

I’ve shared why I think atheistic platonism is not true. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

I’ve asked for other atheistic theories to be brought to the discussion for analysis. Do you believe another atheistic theory explains morality? If so, what is the view and why does it lead to objective morality?

That's not the point. The point is what is the objective in the basis of human morality. I argued (as others do that I cribbed my apologetic from) that it is the survival and prospering of the human species. How best to do that is the 'relative' aspect which is a fair point.

That ‘relative’ aspect is what makes your viewpoint subjectivism, not objectivism. This does not counter my claim that atheistic evolutionary views lead to subjectivism.

It was known (a decade ago) that morality and ethics either exists objectively (in which case it doesn't need a god) or it is purely what the god says it is, in which case there is no objective morality, only the god's opinion.

I already addressed your subjective moral account above. I’m aware of no non-theistic account of objective morality.

As for theistic morality being subjective, what is your actual argument?

If God thinks it's good I stone me folks to death, he can kiss my fourth point of contact.

It may be true he wants that, it ain't necessarily true that's a good thing to do.

God would know what is objectively good for humans (which is what I was saying). There is the additional question of whether this God wants what is objectively good for humans. Still, there would be an objective morality, even if God doesn’t abide by it. Thus, my claim that theism provides objective morality still stands.

Nor can the Christian.

Do you mean that objective morality is logically impossible? Or something else?


P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

2) You can now show the premise P2 is true.

If there is some objective morality, please enlighten us on what it is, where it comes from and how we can determine that it is not merely our own subjective view of what morality should be.

As I’ve already said, I think some people who think they are subjectivists aren’t really. For instance, they would say torturing an innocent child is wrong not just “not my preference”. But if you view torturing innocent children as akin to an ice cream flavor you dislike and others like, then you truly are a subjectivist.

For those who are truly subjectivists, as I’ve already said, I think we can see there is still a universal human moral code present, concerning the principles behind the codes (but with different applications of those principles based on what beliefs people have of reality). The existence of this, I think, points towards objectivism vs subjectivism. On subjectivism, we should expect different base principles.


Misc.

The value of a relative morality is that it allows for discussion and changing the mind about what is to the betterment of humans and what is not, even if once we thought it was.

Objectivists are free to change their mind, as well. Just like scientists can change their mind. Just like historians can change their mind. We are open to discussion and changing minds about what is better for humans, other species, the planet, etc. The difference is that objectivists believe they are getting closer to an objective truth, while subjectivists are only talking about changing preferences, like how I used to hate carrots but now I really like them.

This is kinda the problem we have when folks worship gods who can't be shown to have an opinion on various issues of morality. We get stuck with that person's opinion on what's good or not.

I agree that is a problem. I don’t see how it’s relevant to my argument.

[TRANSPONDER]

The objective idea in no - theist (or evolutionary - in the broadest sense) ethics is that it has an objective basis - human well being. That it is relative in how we try to decide what is best for human well -being is a different matter.

Now, I guess that what you mean by 'objective morality' is a set of unshakeable laws that are not open to question or revision. But where are they? You said (as I recall) that you don't want to appeal to the Bible. Very well, so where are these unshakeable laws? I would suppose that you would appeal to a moral compass or an innate sense of right or wrong. But all that we have is an innate desire for what's best for our well being, which is the objective basis I referred to - which is biological/evolutionary, as I said. It is chimera and plainly false to suppose that these are god -given. They are educated instinct taught to us, and differ in various societies. This is plainly relative, and moreover changes over time and it is right that it should. It is god -based codes of morals that drag their feet and only play catch -up for fear of losing customers.

It seems to be that human morality asnd ethics wins out in the end as Theistic morals and ethics is saying the same thing but pretending it's different.

[JoeyKnothead]

If God thinks it's good I stone me folks to death, he can kiss my fourth point of contact.

It may be true he wants that, it ain't necessarily true that's a good thing to do.

God would know what is objectively good for humans (which is what I was saying).

You've not shown he'd know anything, but beyond that, you've not shown he'd know what's objectively good for humans.

There is the additional question of whether this God wants what is objectively good for humans. Still, there would be an objective morality, even if God doesn’t abide by it. Thus, my claim that theism provides objective morality still stands.

If there's an objective moral value, name one. Remember, murder ain't it, cause history shows some folks have em no problem with it.

Do you mean that objective morality is logically impossible? Or something else?

I mean that just as you say evolution (or evolutionary theory) can't provide objective moral values, neither can the Christian.

This is kinda the problem we have when folks worship gods who can't be shown to have an opinion on various issues of morality. We get stuck with that person's opinion on what's good or not.

I agree that is a problem. I don’t see how it’s relevant to my argument.

Cause all we know of God's morality is that spoken by Christians (or other theists), who can't show they speak for the god it is they claim they do.

You can propose a god you can't show exists has him an opinion on morality ya can't show he does. That fact hardly represents confirmation for your argument.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #448]

The Tanager: I agree that is a problem. I don’t see how it’s relevant to my argument.

JK: Cause all we know of God's morality is that spoken by Christians (or other theists), who can't show they speak for the god it is they claim they do.

You can propose a god you can't show exists has him an opinion on morality ya can't show he does. That fact hardly represents confirmation for your argument.

The Tanager: 1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.
_____________________

From my position, the list Tanager uses is not making any claims as to the nature of the subject "GOD" [even that it can be argued that "God" is the generic Christian idea of GOD] - the subject matter remains a hypothetical, and is best handled from that perspective, rather than bring in arguments which naturally veer away from that understanding.

One can - easily enough - propose a GOD one cannot show to exist
One can propose that the invisible GOD has an opinion on morality.
Certainly, such proposals do not constitute confirmation for an argument therefore, being correct, any more than they constitute confirmation for an argument being incorrect.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #449]

If I get your drift, where we end up is, if we take away a divine lawgiver, then whatever ethical model and mechanism we end up with is what we have and we have to make it as good as we can.

Protesting that it isn't good enough (if hypothetically, anyone did) is pointless . If there is no Universal Law that somehow we have to access, it is either saying it natural like physics which strikes me as absurd as having a Cosmic opinion on good and bad art, or we are talking of a cosmic discrimination that just works out moral codes better than we do. In effect, a hands -on god.