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?

[The Tanager]

I'm not sure of your distinction between objective and subjective morality. I don't see it in those terms.

It is the same as I would mean it for scientific truths. To say the shape of the world is objective would be to say it is an oblate spheroid for everyone, including those who think it is flat. To say the shape is subjective would be to say there is no shape to the earth, just differences in how we experience the shapeless earth.

What you call morality, the anthropologist calls norms (a general term).

Morality involves how one should act. Anthropologists study what humans believe about how they should act and how they act, but do not try to answer how humans should act.

But in truth, norms come from the society that needs them for social cohesion and cooperative behavior. What ever helps the group survive or provide the most comfort or fulfills the values of the group becomes a norm to further those goals.

I agree. This doesnt address whether there is an objective morality or not, though.

My thought is that to presume an 'objective' morality one does indeed have to invent or rely upon an absolute from somewhere. God (an invention to me) provides a basis. So, to claim there is an objective morality is to presuppose a god. Trying use 'objective morality' to prove god exists is therefore, circular.

My argument is not circular. P1 asserts the connection between (viable) atheistic worldviews and morality being objective/subjective. And support is given for that assertion. P2 asserts (not presumes) that objective morality exists. And support is given for that assertion, support without any mention or reliance upon God. These two premises together rationally lead to the conclusion of theism being true. How is that circular?

I am suggesting that there is no 'objective' morality over and above what a culture or society creates for itself; however, I believe there is a 'universal' morality in that all major cultures have similar rules such as not stealing property, or life, or relationships that belong to others or harm the general peace and well being of the community.

If you are correct, then morality is subjective and, thus, you agree with P1 (unless you have good reason to conclude that theism, if true, would also lead to subjective morality). You would be disagreeing with P2. The problem I see with this is that we would expect atheistic evolution to not lead to a universal morality. Societies can function where some people are allowed to steal, kill, harm others. Societies have always functioned in those ways. Thus, on evolution, one should be morally okay with societies with minimal stealing, killing, harming. But humans, universally, are not.

[The Tanager]

Now you're speaking of possibilities, where nothing can be discounted. Considering we can't now see what happened prior to the real or perceived big bang, both "we don't know", and "we can't know" are more rational answers than "a sentient entity caused it".

I am not speaking of possibilities, but philosophical realities. Scientific discoveries about what, if anything, happened prior to the big bang will not change those philosophical realities. Gaining new knowledge of what the "something" has consisted of in its historical stages changes nothing about the most rational answer to the question: "why is there something rather than nothing?".

Philosophically, "we cant know" has absolutely zero support for it; its the highest of faith claims. Scientific discoveries will never be able to change that.

"We dont know" is irrational, unless there is equal evidence for 2 or more of the options, which there isnt. Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible. People often compare God creating the world where it wasnt before as magic, but something coming from nothing (keeping that analogy) would be like magic without a magician; it's worse. Something being eternal far outstrips the other options. The question then becomes what that eternal thing must be like.

You can consider "thought out philosophical reasons" 'til the cows come home - the most rational answer here is that the universe exists, and we don't know how if it's existed for an eternity or not (where you propose an eternal 'creator god').

Proposing a god is not borne of the evidence, but of an anthropomorphism.

No, its born of the evidence. One can respond to these philosophical reasons (one obviously doesnt have to do that here, if they dont want, but I mean in one's own thought life) or maintain a faith position.

My proposal fits what we can see with our own eyes, your proposal requires a sentient entity of immense power that somehow thunk a whole universe into existence.

"Scientism" has a pretty solid track record of explaining the previously unknown, and, in the matter before us, also has the tools to discover. Theism has a magic entity waving his metaphorical hand, and the thunder roars.

No, scientism has a completely empty track record of explaining the previously unknown. Science has a great track record of explaining previously unknown material truths. The matter before us is not a scientific one. Scientism has largely been abandoned by philosophersnaturalistic philosophers, atheistic philosophers included. They realize the self-defeating nature of scientism.

[Diogenes]

I'm not sure of your distinction between objective and subjective morality. I don't see it in those terms.

It is the same as I would mean it for scientific truths. To say the shape of the world is objective would be to say it is an oblate spheroid for everyone, including those who think it is flat. To say the shape is subjective would be to say there is no shape to the earth, just differences in how we experience the shapeless earth.

What you call morality, the anthropologist calls norms (a general term).

Morality involves how one should act. Anthropologists study what humans believe about how they should act and how they act, but do not try to answer how humans should act.

But in truth, norms come from the society that needs them for social cohesion and cooperative behavior. What ever helps the group survive or provide the most comfort or fulfills the values of the group becomes a norm to further those goals.

I agree. This doesnt address whether there is an objective morality or not, though.

My thought is that to presume an 'objective' morality one does indeed have to invent or rely upon an absolute from somewhere. God (an invention to me) provides a basis. So, to claim there is an objective morality is to presuppose a god. Trying use 'objective morality' to prove god exists is therefore, circular.

My argument is not circular. P1 asserts the connection between (viable) atheistic worldviews and morality being objective/subjective. And support is given for that assertion. P2 asserts (not presumes) that objective morality exists. And support is given for that assertion, support without any mention or reliance upon God.

This is where your argument breaks down. You have arbitrarily invented a God with your claim of this special type of 'objective' morality that must rely on the existence of a god. The traditional and scientific use of subjective vs. objective consists of the former being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Objective: refers to not being influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

When we apply this to morality, we have the objective, a reference to the universal morality shared by most if not all societies and based upon the social evolution due to the benefits of cooperation and living in a community. The personal morality may differ, as in fact it does, with sociopaths or certain (for example) religious extremists who claim a different or 'higher' morality based upon their subjective belief (or feigned belief) in a god or gods.

Thus, what you call 'objective' is actually subjective because it relies upon your personal feeling or opinion that a god exists. From this one can follow the subjective morality of the belief that obedience to God is a higher morality. This is the dilemma Abraham found himself in. God asked for obedience to Him derogating from the objective morality of the group which called for not killing Isaac.

[JoeyKnothead]

Now you're speaking of possibilities, where nothing can be discounted. Considering we can't now see what happened prior to the real or perceived big bang, both "we don't know", and "we can't know" are more rational answers than "a sentient entity caused it".

I am not speaking of possibilities, but philosophical realities.

In your Post 532, you said...

The "I dont know" would be the rational position to take only if (at least) two of the three possible truths had equal evidence for them. I dont think they do.

You're only allowing for three possible truths, while rejecting other 'possible' truths, as we'll see...

Your errantly limiting this argument, these "possible truths" to only those 'truths' you consider worthy of consideration.

So, in "possible truths", we must include the idea that we simply don't know, as well as that we can't know.

Nobody here's bound to what you declare are the only "possible truths" - especially when truth can't be put to any of your restricted possibilities.

Scientific discoveries about what, if anything, happened prior to the big bang will not change those philosophical realities.

As restricting "possible truths" to your requirements'll never present the full range of possible realities.

I don't even need to present an example here, cause any real or imagined "possibile reality" fits the criteria of being, well, a possible reality. I just don't place restrictions on possible.

Gaining new knowledge of what the "something" has consisted of in its historical stages changes nothing about the most rational answer to the question: "why is there something rather than nothing?".

That question's most rationally answered, "Cause there is something". No need to invoke super powerful, sentient entities, no need to propose eternal cause / effect.

Philosophically, "we cant know" has absolutely zero support for it; its the highest of faith claims. Scientific discoveries will never be able to change that.

As it fits your own requirement of possible, it can't be dismissed cause you ain't proud of it.

Only, only if we ever do know can we ever rationally dismiss this possibility.

"We dont know" is irrational, unless there is equal evidence for 2 or more of the options, which there isnt.

If we did know, we'd both look irrational for entertaining this conversation.

Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible.

Yet you require no illogical tag when you propose an uncaused god we can't observe as the cause of a universe we do observe.

People often compare God creating the world where it wasnt before as magic, but something coming from nothing (keeping that analogy) would be like magic without a magician; it's worse. Something being eternal far outstrips the other options. The question then becomes what that eternal thing must be like.

Yet you propose God just magically always existed, bit deny the universe couldn't magically always existed.

We observe the universe, so can more rationally dismiss an involvement of magic. Your God, however, has the magical property of being immune to the requirements and restrictions you place on the universe.

You can consider "thought out philosophical reasons" 'til the cows come home - the most rational answer here is that the universe exists, and we don't know how if it's existed for an eternity or not (where you propose an eternal 'creator god').

Proposing a god is not borne of the evidence, but of an anthropomorphism.

No, its born of the evidence. One can respond to these philosophical reasons (one obviously doesnt have to do that here, if they dont want, but I mean in one's own thought life) or maintain a faith position.

Let's think on that...

How much faith is needed to believe the universe, which we observe, has always existed?

How much faith is needed to believe a god which we don't observe even exists to've been eternal about doing it?

My proposal fits what we can see with our own eyes, your proposal requires a sentient entity of immense power that somehow thunk a whole universe into existence.

"Scientism" has a pretty solid track record of explaining the previously unknown, and, in the matter before us, also has the tools to discover. Theism has a magic entity waving his metaphorical hand, and the thunder roars.

No, scientism has a completely empty track record of explaining the previously unknown

Do you really think Thor is responsible for thunder?

Science has a great track record of explaining previously unknown material truths. The matter before us is not a scientific one. Scientism has largely been abandoned by philosophersnaturalistic philosophers, atheistic philosophers included. They realize the self-defeating nature of scientism.

Yeah, cause "A god I can't show exists, has existed for a time I can't show he has, and did him a thing I can't show he did" puts the scientists to crying in their beakers.

[William]

Theist: Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible.

Atheist: Yet you require no illogical tag when you propose an uncaused god we can't observe as the cause of a universe we do observe.
_______________________________________
______________ ________________
_______________________________________


: As we should already agree together, since for the present, science informs us that the universe had a beginning, we have to apply the argument "Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible." to that which has a beginning.

Gods come in all shapes and sizes and there are probably myths about gods who had beginnings and gods who's lives could be ended.

However, there is also the myth of the GOD who had no beginning and in that, is the root-cause of all things which do have beginnings.

Therefore;

As an observer, the theist is correct in this case.
"Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible" does not apply to a GOD who has always existed.

That said, nor would it apply to a universe which has always existed...once the popular beliefs that the universe had a beginning, have been shown [through science of course] to be false...

[JoeyKnothead]

Theist: Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible.

Atheist: Yet you require no illogical tag when you propose an uncaused god we can't observe as the cause of a universe we do observe.
_______________________________________
______________ ________________
_______________________________________


: As we should already agree together, since for the present, science informs us that the universe had a beginning, we have to apply the argument "Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible." to that which has a beginning.

Gods come in all shapes and sizes and there are probably myths about gods who had beginnings and gods who's lives could be ended.

However, there is also the myth of the GOD who had no beginning and in that, is the root-cause of all things which do have beginnings.

Therefore;

As an observer, the theist is correct in this case.
"Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible" does not apply to a GOD who has always existed.

That said, nor would it apply to a universe which has always existed...once the popular beliefs that the universe had a beginning, have been shown [through science of course] to be false...

The Big Bang offers the implication of a beginning, but doesn't allow us a means to confirm any real or potential prior form, nor the age thereof.

The theist looks at the universe and sees god/s.

The realist looks at the universe and sees the universe.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #546]

The realist looks at the universe and sees the universe.

I have added that expression to my ComList and N2N documents.

I didn't mention 'the realist' in my post, because I thought the symbol filled that need nicely...

Theist: Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible.

Atheist: Yet you require no illogical tag when you propose an uncaused god we can't observe as the cause of a universe we do observe.
_______________________________________
______________ ________________
_______________________________________


Realist: As we should already agree together, since for the present, science informs us that the universe had a beginning, we have to apply the argument "Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible." to that which has a beginning.

Gods come in all shapes and sizes and there are probably myths about gods who had beginnings and gods who's lives could be ended.

However, there is also the myth of the GOD who had no beginning and in that, is the root-cause of all things which do have beginnings.

Therefore;

As an observer, the theist is correct in this case.
"Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible" does not apply to a GOD who has always existed.

That said, nor would it apply to a universe which has always existed...once the popular beliefs that the universe had a beginning, have been shown [through science of course] to be false...

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #546]

The Big Bang offers the implication of a beginning, but doesn't allow us a means to confirm any real or potential prior form, nor the age thereof.

The Realist: That sucks.
We will just have to go with the implication then, until some way is discovered where the universe allows for us to see otherwise...
Said.

[The Tanager]

This is where your argument breaks down. You have arbitrarily invented a God with your claim of this special type of 'objective' morality that must rely on the existence of a god.

No, that objective morality relies on God is a logical deduction based on what (viable) atheistic views espouse about themselves.

The traditional and scientific use of subjective vs. objective

The traditional language concerning morality is of philosophical origin, not scientific.

consists of the former being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Objective: refers to not being influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I agree.

When we apply this to morality, we have the objective, a reference to the universal morality shared by most if not all societies and based upon the social evolution due to the benefits of cooperation and living in a community.

Objective and universal are not synonyms. Whether morality is objective or not has nothing to do with logging what actual human views are on a matter and if they are universal or not.

Thus, what you call 'objective' is actually subjective because it relies upon your personal feeling or opinion that a god exists.

No. That a Creator designed humans to flourish in a particular way (if true) has nothing to do with any humans personal feelings or opinions about whether a God exists or not or personal feelings or opinions on anything else.

[The Tanager]

You're only allowing for three possible truths, while rejecting other 'possible' truths, as we'll see...

Yes, "possible" in the sense of the only logically possible answers one could give. Just like "heads" or "tails" or "the coin landed on its side" are the only possible answers to what that coin flip just resulted in. When the coin is flipped, one of those answers must be true.

Your errantly limiting this argument, these "possible truths" to only those 'truths' you consider worthy of consideration.

No, limiting the possibilities to the only available logical answers. To say the coin landed on its "arm" side isnt a possible truth, not because I arbitrarily dont consider it worthy of consideration, but because there is no such thing as a "arm" side and no other way the coin can land.

So, in "possible truths", we must include the idea that we simply don't know, as well as that we can't know.

"I dont know the answer" is not an answer to the question; its a statement about the one to whom the question was asked. If you dont know what the square root of 329,476 is, then you havent given an answer; youve only told us a fact about your limitations to answer it.

"We cant know the answer" is not an answer to the question; its a statement about humanitys limitations. If you say that we cant know what the square root of 329,476 is, then you havent given the answer; youve only told us that you agree there is an answer, but it cannot be had.

That question's most rationally answered, "Cause there is something". No need to invoke super powerful, sentient entities, no need to propose eternal cause / effect.

How is that a rational answer? That doesnt answer the "why?" question at all.

Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible.

Yet you require no illogical tag when you propose an uncaused god we can't observe as the cause of a universe we do observe.

Because these arent parallel cases. Uncaused god or uncaused energy are not self-caused things. Self-caused things are different than uncaused things.

Yet you propose God just magically always existed, bit deny the universe couldn't magically always existed.

Yes, with philosophical reasoning (based on what we scientifically observe about the universe) for doing so.

We observe the universe, so can more rationally dismiss an involvement of magic.

If one dismisses it as magic, rather than looking at magic as a metapho, then one isnt being rational but rhetorically masking irrationality.

Your God, however, has the magical property of being immune to the requirements and restrictions you place on the universe.

Logically, the cause of the space-time universe would have to be different from the universe in specific ways. Nothing magical about that. Unless you consider logic to be magical.

How much faith is needed to believe the universe, which we observe, has always existed?

A ton of faith that goes against the philosophical case against it.

How much faith is needed to believe a god which we don't observe even exists to've been eternal about doing it?

Very little. If you disagree, then refute the philosophical arguments by refuting the premises.

Do you really think Thor is responsible for thunder?

No. Scientism didnt refute that. Science didnt refute that; although it faithfully played its role so that philosophy did.

Yeah, cause "A god I can't show exists, has existed for a time I can't show he has, and did him a thing I can't show he did" puts the scientists to crying in their beakers.

I dont think you understand the difference between science and scientism. There are many atheistic scientists that see the bankruptcy of scientism. The bankruptcy of scientism has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.