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]

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.

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.

I haven’t spoken for hardly any specific moral actions (Christian or otherwise). I’m not proposing what I think God’s opinions are on all the issues. That is irrelevant to my argument, which is about whether there are some objective morals and, as irrelevant, why I haven’t presented that as confirmation for my argument, no matter how many times the straw man gets brought up.


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


Does theism lead to objectivism or subjectivism?

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

I guess one might say a creator God just randomly threw some stuff together without knowing or caring how it turned out, but even that is irrelevant to premise 1 of my argument.

The premise says that theism is the only worldview that can logically give us objective morality, not that all theisms give us objective morality.

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

So, because X can’t do A, neither can Y do A?


Does atheism lead to objectivism or subjectivism?

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.

Objective well being requires a purpose that it’s meant to be aiming at, based on how it is made. It says things should be such and such a way. Atheistic evolution directly rejects that idea. There isn’t even a judgment that species should survive; some will, some won’t. Atheistic evolution speaks to how things are, not how they are supposed to be. It simply gives us “being,” not well-being.


P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

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.

As I’ve said: torturing someone for the sole reason of having a different worldview from you (And don’t change it to just “torture” again). Whether you think that is akin to ice cream tastes or not, no culture has ever claimed such a thing was moral or treated it as akin to ice cream tastes. Those institutions and individuals who have tortured for that sole reason justify their actions, which shows they agree with the universal moral principle…otherwise they would feel no need to justify it.

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.

One can have a discussion over what all the laws are, if we can know all of them, etc. but that is not this discussion. This discussion, as a discussion of the argument I presented, is whether there is a set of laws or not.

I’ve appealed to a universal agreement on some underlying principles. I do think it’s innate in humans and that this is shown by how it exists universally. Atheistic evolution would provide different people with different principles. This points us to the existence of objective morality. At that point, we then consider what could provide that objective basis. Atheistic evolution not only doesn’t provide an objective basis, but (rightly understood) doesn’t claim to provide such a basis.

If you disagree, then please (1) show how atheistic evolution leads to a truly objective morality (back to P1)...or…if you agree that it leads to subjectivism, show how it (2) better accounts for universal moral principles than objectivism or (3) argue for why there aren’t universal moral principles across cultures.

I already clarified this. There have evolved basic co -operation and empathy instincts in species including humans. That has evolved because it is a survival and wel -being method and well -being is the only objective you are going o get, looking for morals.

It isn't surprising that various cultures are going to work out more complex ethics in the same ways, but also (because not universal) they can and do differ.

So the demand that 'atheistic' evolution leads to an objective morality is asking for me to show what is not being claimed. I'll repeat:

The evolved objective good: human survival and well being - evolved pack and tribal instincts.

Complex society required developing moral codes and laws based on the instincts he already had, so in many ways they were the same (eg the golden rule) and in many ways different, as one would expect if it was a human construct.

The demand you made was as invalid as the creationist demand that atheist evolutionists prove that cats can come from dogs. It is necessary to understand the case being made before you ask for explanations.

[The Tanager]

So the demand that 'atheistic' evolution leads to an objective morality is asking for me to show what is not being claimed. I'll repeat:

The evolved objective good: human survival and well being - evolved pack and tribal instincts.

It's still unclear to me what you mean here. I still have these questions: (1) what are some examples of human well being? and (2) why is human well-being and survival objectively good things?

[TRANSPONDER]

So the demand that 'atheistic' evolution leads to an objective morality is asking for me to show what is not being claimed. I'll repeat:

The evolved objective good: human survival and well being - evolved pack and tribal instincts.

It's still unclear to me what you mean here. I still have these questions: (1) what are some examples of human well being? and (2) why is human well-being and survival objectively good things?

Fair questions. Now I'm not a biology nor sociology major but the way it works (I am an expert in nothing, but atheist apologetics requires a jack of all trades and master of none) is that the process of evolution requires an impetus to continue operatye, function and survive. Anything that doesn't goes exinct, and that happens from molecules to the first cells, I won't go through the evolutionary process but reaction becomes instinct, instinct becomes preference and the instinctive reactions of pleasure and pain are survival instincts, just as our instinct to co -operate. In the family which leads to feuds, then the tribe, which leads to wars, and finally nations, which leads to entertainment with subtitles.

The instinct for morality and ethics are there in evolved and (later) educated instinct (we do many things we learned without having to think. In fact if we think about it, we often can't do it). Complex society means that we had to devise law codes and think about ethics and in fact if there was no instinctive basic for notions of good and bad, we'd still have to devise them and that would be the best we could do, and there mot being a perfect god -given system is just too bad.

We might wish for a moon that screens netflix, but it doesn't mean that it does it. We have to live in the world as it is, not as we would prefer it.

I won't rehearse the shortcomings of Biblebased morals, but would just observe...ah yes (my memory ) that the apologetic that human morality is flawed, inadequate and imperfect does not mean that there has to be a perfect Universal morality, given by God, Allah, Vishno or Karma. That argument from morality will no longer wash with atheists. We have an answer. Theism may not buy iy it, but we are no longer stumped by Morality as once we were.

[JoeyKnothead]

Snipping to get to the red meat...

All morality is subjective.

So you agree with what P1 states: if atheism is true, then morality is subjective.

Sorta, I reckon. What I mostly agree with is regardless of gods or men, all morality is subjective.

Your premise fails to establish fact.

I should have said P1 implies that at least some theisms, if true, would show morality to be objective. It’s the support I’ve given that establishes this implication of P1. All I need to do here is give an example of one type of theism that, if true, would lead to morality being objective.

Traditional Christian theism is one such example. In this worldview, God designs humans for a purpose, which includes treating each other (and the world) morally. If true, this God would know what’s objectively best for humans to morally do.

So then, all them Christian slave holders back there in the olden days should be held up as pillars of moral society?

Heck no!

This, in no way, makes this argument an argument for Christian theism. This data is brought in to help establish that P1 cannot be rationally replaced with a premise that says something like: whether theism or atheism is true, morality is subjective. If you think that is a true premise, then you have the burden to support it.

I'm saying whether there's a god or not, all morality is bound to opinion, and is subjective.

Do you think it morally proper to drown an entire planet cause some of its critters caused you a fuss?

You can't even show a creator God threw anything together.

Why would one need to show God threw something else together in order to claim P1 or show that God threw morality together?

Showing one's notions're bound to reality has it a good ability to convince folks those notions're, well, bound to reality.

That's kinda the problem with premising - we can all build us a premise that gets us to a conclusion we wish to promote.

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

So, because X can’t do A, neither can Y do A?

I ain't arguing how the alphabet gets along.

Then, if this is an important critique, clarify what you are arguing.

I lack sufficient mental capacity to say it any clearer...

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

Of course you are free to respond in any way you want. That’s not what I meant. I don’t see how changing my example is anything but responding to a straw man, though. If you want to show why it’s not or respond to the moral value I used to meet your challenge, then please do so.

Torture is wrong to the torturee, the torturer, not so much.

Absolutely. But irrelevant. Those who have done the torture justify their actions. They make an exception for such and such a reason. They wouldn’t do that if they didn’t agree with the moral value to begin with.

Yet there they sit, atorturing and atorturing.

Your example reminds me of the priest who gives a sermon on how homosexuality is this big ol afront to God himself, then don't it beat all, they get caught homoing some little boy.

Our actions define us just as much, or more, than our words.

[The Tanager]

Fair questions. Now I'm not a biology nor sociology major but the way it works (I am an expert in nothing, but atheist apologetics requires a jack of all trades and master of none) is that the process of evolution requires an impetus to continue operatye, function and survive. Anything that doesn't goes exinct, and that happens from molecules to the first cells, I won't go through the evolutionary process but reaction becomes instinct, instinct becomes preference and the instinctive reactions of pleasure and pain are survival instincts, just as our instinct to co -operate. In the family which leads to feuds, then the tribe, which leads to wars, and finally nations, which leads to entertainment with subtitles.

The instinct for morality and ethics are there in evolved and (later) educated instinct (we do many things we learned without having to think. In fact if we think about it, we often can't do it). Complex society means that we had to devise law codes and think about ethics and in fact if there was no instinctive basic for notions of good and bad, we'd still have to devise them and that would be the best we could do, and there mot being a perfect god -given system is just too bad.

We might wish for a moon that screens netflix, but it doesn't mean that it does it. We have to live in the world as it is, not as we would prefer it.

I agree that evolution leads to beings having a desire to survive and (at least for humans) to seek what they think is their “well-being,” which leads to the law codes and all of that. Still, it only tells us what is the case, not what should be the case. Yes, individuals/tribes/nations have what they think should be the case, but there isn’t an objectively true should.

So, (1) there are many different opinions on what human well-being consists of with no objective truth on the matter and (2) there isn’t an objective truth that humans surviving and thriving are good things.

I won't rehearse the shortcomings of Biblebased morals, but would just observe...ah yes (my memory ) that the apologetic that human morality is flawed, inadequate and imperfect does not mean that there has to be a perfect Universal morality, given by God, Allah, Vishno or Karma. That argument from morality will no longer wash with atheists. We have an answer. Theism may not buy iy it, but we are no longer stumped by Morality as once we were.

I don’t think atheists, as a whole, were ever stumped in that way. I’m not saying that is what you meant, but just sharing my thought there.

I agree with you that the apologetic you just described is itself flawed. Do you think my argument shares that apologetic? I think the moral argument I gave is very different than that.

[The Tanager]

So then, all them Christian slave holders back there in the olden days should be held up as pillars of moral society?

I don’t think they should be.

Do you think it morally proper to drown an entire planet cause some of its critters caused you a fuss?

First, I don’t think you correctly portray the Biblical event. Second, I do think God acted morally in that event. Third, let’s assume you are right on both accounts…this does nothing to defeat the moral argument for God’s existence. It would have some weight when discussing the truth of the Bible, but not in this discussion.

Showing one's notions're bound to reality has it a good ability to convince folks those notions're, well, bound to reality.

That's kinda the problem with premising - we can all build us a premise that gets us to a conclusion we wish to promote.

I think you downplay the role of logic in reality in response to those who overplay the role of logic in reality. I believe in a middle path. Our discussion on P1 is about what would be true if atheistic evolution is true and what would be true if some forms of theism were true. That is still bound to reality, of what is true if those worldviews are true.

Then, P2 makes a claim about reality which, if true, and following the logical reasoning in P1, leads to accepting theism over atheism as true. This is following reality and logic (because reality is logical), not just following logic.

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

I don’t mean that atheistic evolution, if true, would lead to objective morality but isn’t true. (I do think atheistic platonism, if true, would lead to objective morality, but I think it’s clearly untrue). I mean that atheistic evolution, if true, would lead to subjective morality.

Do you mean the same for Christianity (and some other theisms)? If so, why would Christianity lead to morality being subjective?

Torture is wrong to the torturee, the torturer, not so much.

No culture thinks torturing people for the sole reason of having a different worldview is good. Those that have done this would say “that’s not what I’m doing, I'm doing this other thing."

Our actions define us just as much, or more, than our words.

Yes, our actions define us more than our words. But we aren’t talking about us in this argument, we are talking about moral values and duties, which are defined by words.

[JoeyKnothead]

So then, all them Christian slave holders back there in the olden days should be held up as pillars of moral society?

I don’t think they should be.

Subjectivity.

Do you think it morally proper to drown an entire planet cause some of its critters caused you a fuss?

First, I don’t think you correctly portray the Biblical event. Second, I do think God acted morally in that event.

If only there were some way to ask all them drowned folks how proud they are to be it.

I, personally, consider it a horrible act.

Subjectivity.

Third, let’s assume you are right on both accounts…this does nothing to defeat the moral argument for God’s existence. It would have some weight when discussing the truth of the Bible, but not in this discussion.

So we're left to ponder what objective moral value your proposed god has to offer, and how we might confirm you know it.

Showing one's notions're bound to reality has it a good ability to convince folks those notions're, well, bound to reality.

That's kinda the problem with premising - we can all build us a premise that gets us to a conclusion we wish to promote.

I think you downplay the role of logic in reality in response to those who overplay the role of logic in reality. I believe in a middle path. Our discussion on P1 is about what would be true if atheistic evolution is true and what would be true if some forms of theism were true. That is still bound to reality, of what is true if those worldviews are true.

What would be true, what is true, in each of those scenarios is that morality is subjective. It's purely opinion, and can't be shown otherwise.

Then, P2 makes a claim about reality which, if true, and following the logical reasoning in P1, leads to accepting theism over atheism as true. This is following reality and logic (because reality is logical), not just following logic.

If true, and is true, them ain't the same thing.

We can support any argument when we start putting in ifs.

If, in a land where goats're fast as Ferraris, the Kentucky Derby'd be held in Maranello.

Sounds logical to me, if that if ain't it no longer an if.

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

I don’t mean that atheistic evolution, if true, would lead to objective morality but isn’t true. (I do think atheistic platonism, if true, would lead to objective morality, but I think it’s clearly untrue). I mean that atheistic evolution, if true, would lead to subjective morality.

All morality is subjective. You're never gonna show otherwise. You'll just continue piling one if it right on top another'n.

Do you mean the same for Christianity (and some other theisms)? If so, why would Christianity lead to morality being subjective?

All morality is subjective, no matter who gets nailed to a cross.

I note we were trying to get away from a strictly Christian theology, so again, I'll try not to keep tangling it in.

Torture is wrong to the torturee, the torturer, not so much.

No culture thinks torturing people for the sole reason of having a different worldview is good.

Yet we've got records aplenty of folks being dunked, lopped, hung and hanged for their beliefs.

Those that have done this would say “that’s not what I’m doing, I'm doing this other thing."

Which is why I said, and you quoted me atelling it...

Torture is wrong to the torturee, the torturer, not so much.

We see that opinions differ, depending on who it is getting stretched out till their limbs snap off.

Our actions define us just as much, or more, than our words.

Yes, our actions define us more than our words. But we aren’t talking about us in this argument, we are talking about moral values and duties, which are defined by words.

And we see you wanting to define morality as objective cause some undefined god's proud of it, and me defining it as subjective cause that's like, that god's opinion, man.

[TRANSPONDER]

Fair questions. Now I'm not a biology nor sociology major but the way it works (I am an expert in nothing, but atheist apologetics requires a jack of all trades and master of none) is that the process of evolution requires an impetus to continue operatye, function and survive. Anything that doesn't goes exinct, and that happens from molecules to the first cells, I won't go through the evolutionary process but reaction becomes instinct, instinct becomes preference and the instinctive reactions of pleasure and pain are survival instincts, just as our instinct to co -operate. In the family which leads to feuds, then the tribe, which leads to wars, and finally nations, which leads to entertainment with subtitles.

The instinct for morality and ethics are there in evolved and (later) educated instinct (we do many things we learned without having to think. In fact if we think about it, we often can't do it). Complex society means that we had to devise law codes and think about ethics and in fact if there was no instinctive basic for notions of good and bad, we'd still have to devise them and that would be the best we could do, and there mot being a perfect god -given system is just too bad.

We might wish for a moon that screens netflix, but it doesn't mean that it does it. We have to live in the world as it is, not as we would prefer it.

I agree that evolution leads to beings having a desire to survive and (at least for humans) to seek what they think is their “well-being,” which leads to the law codes and all of that. Still, it only tells us what is the case, not what should be the case. Yes, individuals/tribes/nations have what they think should be the case, but there isn’t an objectively true should.

So, (1) there are many different opinions on what human well-being consists of with no objective truth on the matter and (2) there isn’t an objective truth that humans surviving and thriving are good things.

I won't rehearse the shortcomings of Biblebased morals, but would just observe...ah yes (my memory ) that the apologetic that human morality is flawed, inadequate and imperfect does not mean that there has to be a perfect Universal morality, given by God, Allah, Vishno or Karma. That argument from morality will no longer wash with atheists. We have an answer. Theism may not buy iy it, but we are no longer stumped by Morality as once we were.

I don’t think atheists, as a whole, were ever stumped in that way. I’m not saying that is what you meant, but just sharing my thought there.

I agree with you that the apologetic you just described is itself flawed. Do you think my argument shares that apologetic? I think the moral argument I gave is very different than that.

I can't speak for atheists as a whole, but in the 80's when I got into the debate, Morality was considered a sure-fire atheist - stumper and it was a problem. It was certainly helped by the discovery of DNA and its' mechanism for instinct and animals behavior (and even empathy) being an evolved survival instinct. As indeed I suspect is art and music and of course literature through communication and the invention of writing.

This is all about basic animal abilities and characteristics that humanity has built on with a remarkable brain, and a complex human society.

Now, Morality as such isn't a problem for me. The remarkable abilities of the human brain is harder to account for, but the good old atheist 'No doubt science will explain it one day' comes into play here. But of course, there is the usual safely barrier here for any such awkwardness for atheist apologetics: "Even if that can't be explained without a god, which god?"

I might mention in passing as a parallel, the evolution of the eye and the feather. The eye didn't bother me at all because I was familiar with the eye in nature in all stages of evolution, but the feather was a problem. It was a complex evolution for no apparent purpose but flight. But how could it have evolved in a creature that didn't know it wanted to fly? I knew of various hypotheses, but it took the discovery of more feathered dinosaurs to explain the process of evolution of feathers not originally for flight.

So there is a certain amount of justification for atheists saying 'Science will explain it one day' Since it so often has.

Your apologetic was: There is no morality without God or No objective morality without a god? I think it is a flawed apologetic as survival and a successful one is the only objective that there is and a God imposing a Objective morality is just God's opinion. And it won't come as a surprise that God's morality is not one that rationalists admire.

So, no we do not need a god or even a dictated moral code but a survival aim is Objective' enough. And human well being is good enough, like the best art and music, and there it is not God - given but undisputable human design and preference. I see no reason for Law codes and ethics to be any different other than this human universal preference to be happy because frankly it makes us feel good. And that is the best reason you are going to get.

[The Tanager]

I don’t think they should be.

Subjectivity.

Objectivism/subjectivitism isn’t about whether people have beliefs/opinions on matters, it’s about what kind of belief/opinion one thinks those are.

What would be true, what is true, in each of those scenarios is that morality is subjective. It's purely opinion, and can't be shown otherwise.

You keep stating that, but you don’t show why you think that or why others should think that.

If true, and is true, them ain't the same thing.

We can support any argument when we start putting in ifs.

If, in a land where goats're fast as Ferraris, the Kentucky Derby'd be held in Maranello.

Sounds logical to me, if that if ain't it no longer an if.

Now, to do what I’ve done with the moral argument, offer support that this if-conditional is actually true, that they would move the Kentucky Derby. And then offer support for this land where the goats are as fast as Ferraris being true. If you rationally do those two things, then reality would be as you say. At that point the “ifs” are no longer “ifs”. That’s what you misunderstand about philosophical arguments like the moral argument.

Yet we've got records aplenty of folks being dunked, lopped, hung and hanged for their beliefs.

True and irrelevant. Those who dunked, lopped, hung, and hanged others try to justify why their action wasn’t torturing innocent people just for having different beliefs.

Those that have done this would say “that’s not what I’m doing, I'm doing this other thing."

Which is why I said, and you quoted me atelling it...

Torture is wrong to the torturee, the torturer, not so much.

We see that opinions differ, depending on who it is getting stretched out till their limbs snap off.

I’m saying you are wrong. The torturer doesn’t think they are torturing an innocent person simply for having a different belief. The disagreement is about the fact of the matter, not the moral principle being applied to the different view of facts.

But even if you want to call that moral differences, a difference of opinion does not mean something is subjective. Scientific opinions differ but that doesn’t mean science is subjective. Opinions on what the answer to a math question is differ but that doesn’t mean math is subjective.

And we see you wanting to define morality as objective cause some undefined god's proud of it, and me defining it as subjective cause that's like, that god's opinion, man.

No, I’m defining the term completely apart from theism and atheism. Then I’m looking at what category theism and atheistic evolution, if true, on their own logic, would fall under.

[The Tanager]

Your apologetic was: There is no morality without God or No objective morality without a god? I think it is a flawed apologetic as survival and a successful one is the only objective that there is and a God imposing a Objective morality is just God's opinion.

So, no we do not need a god or even a dictated moral code but a survival aim is Objective' enough. And human well being is good enough, like the best art and music, and there it is not God - given but undisputable human design and preference. I see no reason for Law codes and ethics to be any different other than this human universal preference to be happy because frankly it makes us feel good. And that is the best reason you are going to get.

I think when you call this “objective enough” you are equivocating on “objective”. What you state here, in the traditional objectivism vs. subjectivism debate, is pure subjectivism.

As to theistic morality, it’s not just God’s opinion. I’ve stated reasons for why it’s not about just another opinion, but an objective truth about human nature (which isn't mirrored in atheistic evolutionary views). I have seen no attempt from you to counter those reasons; I simply see you repeating that it’s just God’s opinion.