What's the Point of Prayer?

[POI]

In regards to the following verses -- Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23....

What do they really mean? I've debated many theists, and get a whole mess of conflicting answers. It will likely be no surprise if that continues here. After some thought, here are some findings...

1. All prayer is pointless, as any "answered prayer" would merely mean, <at best>, that it already aligned with God's will. Why? Because you cannot make God change His will. But this seems to go against all the verses listed above.

2. Ignore the above! God answers all prayer with a (yes, no, or later). His answer, of course, would be "no" if you are asking God to commit a 'sin.' But if this option is the case, I guess he will always say no to the requests of restoring lost limbs, reversing cerebral palsy, and downs syndrome. Why? Because they will die with these conditions, which means they remained unfulfilled until natural death. But this seems to go against all the verses listed above, as there really exists no such caveats....?

3. Ignore choices 1. and 2.! Prayer is only meant for giving thanks, other. God is not a slot machine! But this seems to go against all the verses listed above.

I'm sure there exists a plethora of other explanations........ You get the gist....

For Debate:

What is the point of prayer? I guess we can start here, and see where this goes....

[brunumb]

God wants you to know he exists in the sense that God wants you to come to believe in God through experiences and reasoning.

Too bad for you if those experiences and reasoning don't work. He obviously would know just how much it would take to convince any individual, but somehow can't be bothered trying that bit harder. One has to wonder why? Short answer, he's not really there.

Can you re-read what I said again? Thanks. Your response shows me you either did not read it carefully, or I did not word it well enough. Just in case it is the later, I will expound.

God does not want you to believe by forcing his existence upon you. He wants you to believe because you figure it out on your own.

And if you don't figure it out on your own then too bad for you. God really is a prize doofus.

[POI]

This is not exactly accurate. God has answered prayers in such a way that would reveal his existence to the person asking because it makes no difference to them because they are already fully convinced of God. By God healing them or by Mary coming to them and speaking to them, it doesn't raise their faith. It only makes them happy that they were worthy.

Hmm... So it seems prayer is pointless, if you pray for God to cure an incurable condition. If you are among one of the truly faithful, some of these folks will either:

A) Pray for God to cure the incurable, and He will always say NO --- (except for the two examples you provided, and maybe some others in Timbuktu or the Ozarks).
B) Know NOT to pray for God to cure incurable conditions, because you already know He will not answer such prayer requests anyways. However, God might sometimes entertain prayer requests for a quick death of these incurable conditions; like downs syndrome, cerebral palsy, and amputations.

*** I cannot think of a third excuse, oh, I mean option.... If you have one, please enlighten all of us? ***

Catholics take reasoning very seriously. If one's interpretation of the bible is illogical, then it is wrong. If it leads to contradictions, then it is wrong.

Luckily for you, your given answers above do not defy logic (and/or) are not contradictory Unfalsifiable excuses hardly ever are...

You cannot fully understand the ways of God. They knew this long ago.

Sounds like this response is more than meets the eye..... You could have just said this, from the jump, and saved yourself about 50 responses. Just say you have NO idea.... But instead, here we are Further, if you cannot fully understand God, then maybe your perception of Him is completely off. Maybe He is not 'good' to your standard. In fact, maybe He is not 'good' at all... If you claim otherwise, then you start to contradict your above statement, that we cannot fully understand Him

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #112]

There are things we can know about God through reason and revelation.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #112]

There are things we can know about God through reason and revelation.

Am I responding to these things which you "know through reason and revelation"? Or, are you merely pulling junk right out of your keester? Based upon your own passed responses, here is where we have landed thus far:

(post #112)

Hmm... So it seems prayer is pointless, if you pray for God to cure an incurable condition. If you are among one of the truly faithful, some of these folks will either:

A) Pray for God to cure the incurable, and He will always say NO --- (except for the two examples you provided, and maybe some others in Timbuktu or the Ozarks).
B) Know NOT to pray for God to cure incurable conditions, because you already know He will not answer such prayer requests anyways. However, God might sometimes entertain prayer requests for a quick death of these incurable conditions; like downs syndrome, cerebral palsy, and amputations.

*** I cannot think of a third excuse, oh, I mean option.... If you have one, please enlighten all of us? ***

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #112]

There are things we can know about God through reason and revelation.

Reason (Logic and evidence)no longer supports God -belief, as too many gaps for God have claimed, (though some arguments for some sorta -god remain).

Revelation no longer convinces because too many people have Revelations about too many different things. Right now there is a thread on whether Christians believe in a hell or not. If they can't agree on that, what price 'Revelation?'. Even if they agreed on everything one could still argue that it was a common brain - induced human delusion. Prophecy does'nt do much for the Bible case either.

What you have is Faith and a specialised one that dismisses all the others. In short, you really have no case at all.

Not getting at you, lad, but you have to understand that Faithbased assertions of the kind you make above get you nothing.

I seem to recall that you posted something along the lines o 'well, what can I sy? What can I hope to achieve here?'. Pal, you can achieve nothing here but a realisation that you have almost no case. I know this, because I've seen it happen before. Sure Theist, after Theist rolls up making the same debunked claims (sometimes the same Theist ) but the result is the same. They have Faith - claims and precious little else.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #115]

I disagree. Readers will see that atheists are lacking in many areas, yet they do not see their short comings.

For example, you think you know the arguments for God. Can you explain the main element of Godel's ontological argument? Point out in your own words what he main point is as to how to comes to the existence of God.

[POI]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #115]

I disagree. Readers will see that atheists are lacking in many areas, yet they do not see their short comings.

For example, you think you know the arguments for God. Can you explain the main element of Godel's ontological argument? Point out in your own words what he main point is as to how to comes to the existence of God.

Notice the highlighted bold parts...

Sorry to interject here, but this response gave me quite the chuckle... Years ago, I was in an exchange with a Muslim. As he was pelting out point after point after point, as to why Islam was the correct set of beliefs, he asked.... "Have you actually ever even read the Holy Quran, from cover to cover? Seems like you do not know all that it actually says?" After exchanging a little further, his argument looked to be... Well, until you know what it says, in it's entirety, you have no basis to reject it. Well, logically, I disagreed. I have not read many claimed holy books, from cover to cover, just like he probably has not either. Further, if I take a special interest in the Quran, and read it 12 times, would I then believe it's claims?

Meaning, you too are likely not fully aware of all the god claims out there -- (not just the ones tied directly to the Abrahamic god claims). There is also an infinite number of claims, either not mentioned at all, or, ones you may not really have heard of too much...). Further, if TRANSPONDER were to know this "ontological argument", to your satisfaction, would he then be a god believer? If so, please present, in another thread, and start the persuasion campaign....

Further, does an atheist need to be fully aware of every stink'n claim out there, before they are logical in rejecting the over-all god claim(s)? Or, maybe, is it actually the other way around... (i.e) Be skeptical and/or doubtful of any/all supernatural claims, until demonstrated otherwise? Meaning, if TRANSPONDER were to be as well versed in this particular argument, that you suggest, would he believe, just like you?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.

Okay, can we get back on track now? I'm patiently awaiting a reply to post #114.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #117]

You seemed to miss the point. Godel's ontological argument is not a faith claim, yet the guy acts like theists only have faith claims. It is a weak tactic by atheists that lack any study in philosophy.

Atheists like Graham Oppy never make such claims because he understands both positions well enough not to make that mistake.

I bet neither of you have watched the 3 mistakes atheists make yet. You should. You owe it to yourselves so you stop making the mistakes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6hi-r6GlM&t=344s The guest here is Joe Schmid, Majesty of Reason on Youtube, a philosopher and agnostic. If you could learn to reason like this guy, you would have a much stronger position. I wish you could see just how unconvincing your position is. In fact, it is not even a world view. It is just skepticism without substance.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #117]

You seemed to miss the point. Godel's ontological argument is not a faith claim, yet the guy acts like theists only have faith claims. It is a weak tactic by atheists that lack any study in philosophy.

Atheists like Graham Oppy never make such claims because he understands both positions well enough not to make that mistake.

I bet neither of you have watched the 3 mistakes atheists make yet. You should. You owe it to yourselves so you stop making the mistakes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6hi-r6GlM&t=344s The guest here is Joe Schmid, Majesty of Reason on Youtube, a philosopher and agnostic. If you could learn to reason like this guy, you would have a much stronger position. I wish you could see just how unconvincing your position is. In fact, it is not even a world view. It is just skepticism without substance.

Wrong, and wrong for the usual reason that God (whether sorta or specific) apologists cannot see, because they are trapped in a Box of Godfaith they cannot think beyond. All these questions and hypotheses and puzzles only add up to agnosticism, which means we don't know until science tells us. That means no god of any kind until validated. And the arguments that reason and evidence shows a god are false. Logically and evidentially false. And no matter how often we explain it, Theists cannot see it. Worse, they cannot see that atheists do not see it in a sort of mirror image of faith in non - god. Anselm, chum, you will never get this straight until you understand that the only logically sound basis is 'start without a god, then the god - claimant has to validate it'. I've had some raging denials of that 'No -god is a claim!' (No it isn't) 'Well of course it is! You're claiming that no god exists.' (No, I'm saying that no assumption about a god is a logically valid starting point) "Well that is an assumption' , (No, claiming an intelligent entity is a claim that must be validated)' "No, No...you are making a claim that no God exists..." and so on...Do you get it Anselfm mate, do you understand why all your arguments and all Theist arguments (generally, apart from irrelevant peripherals, like Cyrus did take Babylon, and Romans did issue coins with Caesar's head on) are flawed, illogical and invalidated as the outset, because they begin with, and are based on. Gofaith, and they cn never, ever see it.

Cue..though I think you are not going to fall into this error. I believe you are better and smarter. 'well logic is just a human invention'.

P.s. Would you like to post the 'three mistakes atheists make?' (I have seen and (I recall) refuted '5 mistakes atheists make'. You have gotta stop this business of sending us to research your apologetics for you....oh and I wish you'd stop this cheap trick of 'he is a Philosopher and an 'Agnostic' - i.e 'an atheist who agrees with me, so maybe you should'. This is just mucky brush salesmanship.

[POI]

You seemed to miss the point.

Right back at ya.... Please address what I actually highlighted and wrote about.

I bet neither of you have watched the 3 mistakes atheists make yet. You should. You owe it to yourselves so you stop making the mistakes.

After I'm done watching, can I point out the many mistakes you are making, without having to also provide a video to boot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6hi-r6GlM&t=344s The guest here is Joe Schmid, Majesty of Reason on Youtube, a philosopher and agnostic. If you could learn to reason like this guy, you would have a much stronger position. I wish you could see just how unconvincing your position is. In fact, it is not even a world view. It is just skepticism without substance.

And yet, you have appeared to abandon this thread, after I thoroughly picked apart your rationale for "prayer." Meaning, you never addressed post #114. So go ahead and huff and puff. It's entertaining, at least...