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?

[JoeyKnothead]

Where I notice previous typos or misspellings in posts, and a fix doesn't change the notion, I just fix it to help kinda clean things up. I don't try trickery, it's just to clean things up.

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.

You seem to've moved from "rational" to "logical", so let's think on logical...

Logic is only as useful as the rules under which it applies. Under your criteria / questions, we leave out rationality, and impose a new set of rules, where our only available, or "logical" answers're confined to the problem at hand.

So it may well be, under your scenario, that you've found the 'logical' answer. But is that the best answer? I say it ain't cause the scenario causes it a confinement of possible, rational answers.

We simply don't know the universe has, or hasn't existed, like proposed gods, for an eternity. What we do know is there it sits, being it a universe. Being a thing we observe.

Then here you come along with your scenario and declare a god we don't observe has him qualities we don't observe, patting yourself on the back for the 'logical' solution that doesn't afford us a rational answer.

You're 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 isn’t a possible truth, not because I arbitrarily don’t consider it worthy of consideration, but because there is no such thing as a “arm” side and no other way the coin can land.

See above - logic's limited to the rules of its game.

In your scenario, we're left with only the answers you deem appropriate, or 'logical' within the confines of that scenario. It leaves out the most rational answer in pursuit of an answer that might provide more comfort.

Not knowing don't just kill us right then and there. Heck, if it did, we'd all drop dead when asked what the wimmins want.

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

“I don’t know the answer” is not an answer to the question; it’s a statement about the one to whom the question was asked. If you don’t know what the square root of 329,476 is, then you haven’t given an answer; you’ve only told us a fact about your limitations to answer it.

Which is exactly why your logic problem is confined to logic, and not reality, nor rationality.

“We can’t know the answer” is not an answer to the question; it’s a statement about humanity’s limitations. If you say that we can’t know what the square root of 329,476 is, then you haven’t given the answer; you’ve only told us that you agree there is an answer, but it cannot be had.

It's an answer, no matter how discomforting to the petitioner.

That it might not fit within the 'logic' of the scenario you provide does not negate it as legitimate.

Unless, of course, there comes a day when we do know. Then, but only then, does it become a non-viable, or even non-logical answer.

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 doesn’t answer the “why?” question at all.

Exactly. Where we don't know the answer, there's no need to present scenarios that restrict answers to only the answers we provide.

Why's there a universe?

Cause God.
Cause there's a universe.

Which answer better comports to our observations?

That the answer's discomforting ain't no reason to declare it 'illegal' (my term).

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 aren’t parallel cases. Uncaused god or uncaused energy are not self-caused things. Self-caused things are different than uncaused things.

Where've you shown the universe ain't uncaused?

You declare it so, but fail to put the truth to that notion.

Remember, even if we accept the big bang as the precursor (or ongoing) cause to what we now observe, that doesn't get us to what prior form the universe might've taken. Think of it like dynamite - we're observing the explosion, not having seen if it was a stick of it, or a round blob. (Where analogies are a poor means of discovering truth)

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 scientifically observe the results of a rapid expansion of material, and not what that material might've looked like, or for how long, before that expansion.

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 metaphor, then one isn’t being rational but rhetorically masking irrationality.

Says the guy who declares a god he can't show exists did a thing he can't show he did.

Where "magic" is an invoking of the unknown, and unknowable, we know the universe is there, and can point to it and say, "See, right there". Gods, and their proposed actions, not so much.

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.

Of course we can say the expansion of the universe is the universe changing states in specific ways.

The problem comes from declaring a god we can't show exists s the specific reason it's doing all that changing.

I can declare it's cause the all powerful emus needed em a place to stay. At least I can point to an emu. Unless you wanna declare emus don’t need em no place to stay.

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.

Philosophy ain't fact.

The fact is, we don't know if the universe has, or has not, existed eternally.

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.

Per site rules, I'm under no obligation to refute your claims.

You're the one declaring how logical it is to claim a god caused the universe, the onus is on you.

I merely pointed out the flaws in your scenario, without ever having to prove either of your restricted answers're correct or not.

Do you really think Thor is responsible for thunder?

No. Scientism didn’t refute that. Science didn’t refute that; although it faithfully played its role so that philosophy did.

I guarantee you, the first scientist that comes along who's able to prove, beyond scientific doubt, that God exists, is gonna be him worshipped as a Jesus, up 'til he goes to the mideast, and they string him up too.

Theists, it seems, looooooove to harp against science, or -giggle- scientism, when it doesn't help, but love to have it at the table when it does.

Of course science, and 'scientism' are ruled by their own philosophy, so I'm not sure why there's this distinction here.

It makes me wonder if some folks ain't sore they had to settle for a philosophy degree, when what they really wanted was to be a cosmologist.

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 don’t 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.

Science is folks studying stuff and trying to figure out stuff.

Scientism is the term theists use when scientists can't support theist claims.

[Diogenes]

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

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.

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

You make an error in several of your posts on this subject by referring to "atheist" views. I make no such reference. I simply look at the social and physical sciences and see no need to add a "god must have done it" element. Science is not atheistic. If science discovers evidence of a divine being, a creator, it will publish the evidence.

'Objective' and 'universal' are not synonyms, but we can see objective morality (that is, society's accepted norms) cross culturally as I have demonstrated. Thus we can determine laws against theft and murder and bearing false witness and even many traffic rules as universal, where as some details and laws regarding 'gods' are not universal.
You cannot logically, rationally claim "God' is a logical deduction" or that "objective morality relies on God" because you cannot prove God exists. There is nothing on this Earth that requires "God" as an explanation. Your belief in God is purely subjective, yet you are trying to turn that around and claim God and his supposed "morality" is objective. The opposite is true.
I gave the example of 'The Binding of Isaac.' You have not addressed it. It provides an excellent example of the caprice of this imaginary Hebrew god when he violates his own law against murder and demands obedience to himself as his first demand while ordering Abraham to kill his son.
Other examples are the flood myth and the many times this tribal, imaginary 'god' ordered his tribe to annihilate other tribes including women, children and infants, not to mention even their cattle (1 Samuel 15:3). This is not a god of 'objective morality.' This 'god' and Jesus of Nazareth are opposites.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #551]

You seem to've moved from "rational" to "logical", so let's think on logical...

Logic is only as useful as the rules under which it applies. Under your criteria / questions, we leave out rationality, and impose a new set of rules, where our only available, or "logical" answers're confined to the problem at hand.

So it may well be, under your scenario, that you've found the 'logical' answer. But is that the best answer? I say it ain't cause the scenario causes it a confinement of possible, rational answers.

We simply don't know the universe has, or hasn't existed, like proposed gods, for an eternity. What we do know is there it sits, being it a universe. Being a thing we observe.

Then here you come along with your scenario and declare a god we don't observe has him qualities we don't observe, patting yourself on the back for the 'logical' solution that doesn't afford us a rational answer.

At the very least, if one is going to entertain the idea that the Universe exists because "GOD" - one would have to align the motivations of the GOD for creating The Universe, with how The Universe actually is unfolding...as it 'sits'...

If one can make the necessary explanations, "GOD did it" can remain on the table as among the possibilities being tabled re "reasons for why it exists"...

Explanations re "How it unfolds" have so far not eliminated that possibility...and so we continue to examine the incoming data of experience...

[Diagoras]

I agree that the only answer to ‘where did this god come from’ that can be in any way satisfactory to theists will be the ‘something eternal’ one, for the same reasons you give for (I presume?) the physical universe.

I’m not following you here. The same reasons theists give for the physical universe what?

Meaning the questions “where did god come from” and “where did the universe come from” have similar problems. Did God cause himself?

Science, by definition, has no way to answer where a supernatural being came from or whether a supernatural being exists or not. It can certainly help in coming up with the strongest philosophical answer to that philosophical question. If the most rational philosophical answer isn’t satisfactory to scientists, then they need to be better philosophers.

Any explanation of an event falls within the scope of science. That’s because science is a method of investigation.

Claims about anything with a physical, measurable manifestation that God may have done can be tested within the realm of science to find out if they are likely true.

I think scientists just need to keep asking questions. The gaps that God may be in are narrowing, not widening.

In contrast, there are at least glimmers of evidence to suggest that ‘something can come from nothing’, which, while seemingly an irrational concept may well prove to be real.

The time dilation effects of relativity, and wave-particle duality may appear irrational until we properly understand the complex rules that govern space time, mass and energy, so perhaps claiming ‘something coming from nothing’ to be irrational is similarly premature.

In what way do you think these suggest something can come from nothing?

They don’t themselves directly support the claim. Rather, they are examples of now experimentally verified, real phenomena that were likely considered ’completely irrational’ before Einstein and Planck came along.

I’m saying that the claim “self-causation is irrational” is in effect arguing from ignorance: because the physical laws governing it aren’t known.

[William]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #554]

Did God cause himself?

William: I notice this as a common atheist mis-conception.

Where there are Gods which are said to have been created, the questioning of statments that the god was "not created", is reasonable.

Where the statements re a God 'has always existed' - it is unreasonable to be then asking questions as to "how did God come about?" and stuff like that.

Atheist: There are at least glimmers of evidence to suggest that ‘something can come from nothing’, which, while seemingly an irrational concept may well prove to be real.

The time dilation effects of relativity, and wave-particle duality may appear irrational until we properly understand the complex rules that govern space time, mass and energy, so perhaps claiming ‘something coming from nothing’ to be irrational is similarly premature.

William: A statement that "some thing" cannot derive from "no thing" is logical based on the evidence within the universe, thus cannot be said to be "premature" of knowing differently.

Glimmers of evidence to the contrary - while these would be interesting - are simply not enough to support that it is rational to proceed prematurely along the path that any thing can derive from a non-thing.

Atheist: I’m saying that the claim “self-causation is irrational” is in effect arguing from ignorance: because the physical laws governing it aren’t known.

William: In the face of the evidence the Universe provides, it is acceptable to have the opinion that "self-causation [of said Universe] is irrational", therefore, it is not a statement from ignorance.

The physical laws governing the Universe show us that every thing in the Universe derives from some thing in the Universe, and scientists appear to be saying that the current science is showing us that the Universe had a beginning.

Until it is shown to be otherwise, even that we might like the idea that the Universe has always existed, there is no compelling evidence available to make it so.

[JoeyKnothead]

At the very least, if one is going to entertain the idea that the Universe exists because "GOD" - one would have to align the motivations of the GOD for creating The Universe, with how The Universe actually is unfolding...as it 'sits'...

If one can make the necessary explanations, "GOD did it" can remain on the table as among the possibilities being tabled re "reasons for why it exists"...

Explanations re "How it unfolds" have so far not eliminated that possibility...and so we continue to examine the incoming data of experience...

In considering the motivations or methods of an unobserved, omnipotent, omniscient god, we can propose anything, and remain within the bounds of 'logic'.

Explanations here're little better'n, "How perfect is that hole, that it'd hold that perfect amount of water?"

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Where there are Gods which are said to have been created, the questioning of statments that the god was "not created", is reasonable.

I propose that in debate, it's reasonable to challenge any claim.

If I declare there's a god who got created, I should be honor bound to support my claim, thus...

Where the statements re a God 'has always existed' - it is unreasonable to be then asking questions as to "how did God come about?" and stuff like that.

In support of declaring the universe to be "caused" or "created", as above, a claim that's made should be open to challenge, and the claimant with an nth of honor beholden to support the claim.

...
A statement that "some thing" cannot derive from "no thing" is logical based on the evidence within the universe, thus cannot be said to be "premature" of knowing differently.

Then God, being it a something must also have been derived. From what, we leave to the claimant.

There should be no excusing the claimant simply cause a challenge brings em discomfort, or exposes the errors of their thinking.

Glimmers of evidence to the contrary - while these would be interesting - are simply not enough to support that it is rational to proceed prematurely along the path that any thing can derive from a non-thing.

Cool.

From what glimmer did God, a thing, derive?

...
The physical laws governing the Universe show us that every thing in the Universe derives from some thing in the Universe, and scientists appear to be saying that the current science is showing us that the Universe had a beginning.

So we ask such claimant, such scientist, who'd make such a claim, in debate to support their claims in this regard.

Until it is shown to be otherwise, even that we might like the idea that the Universe has always existed, there is no compelling evidence available to make it so.

Says those proponents of a god that can't be observed, to've "always existed".

"We get to claim a god we can't show exists, and how bout that, he always has, and y'all're picking on us when ya ask how come he's immune to the rules we place on the universe."

If one makes a claim, in debate, they should have the honor to support that claim, rather than make excuses as to why they can't, or won't.

I'll not be bound to play by the rules of theist illogic.

[William]

William: If one can make the necessary explanations, "GOD did it" can remain on the table as among the possibilities being tabled re "reasons for why it exists"...

Explanations re "How it unfolds" have so far not eliminated that possibility...and so we continue to examine the incoming data of experience...

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #556]

JK: In considering the motivations or methods of an unobserved, omnipotent, omniscient god, we can propose anything, and remain within the bounds of 'logic'.

Only as it pertains to this Universe JK. We can observe the Universe so should at least be able to deduce why any Creator might have created it.

For example, we cannot make the claim that the GOD-Creator of this Universe is "omnipotent, omniscient" because we cannot see such attributes in the evidence of the Universe...so that is only an avoidable statement of opinion.

If we can point to anything in the Universe and show that a GOD-Creator didn't/couldn't have create that thing, then we can confidently stride in that direction sure that our lack of belief in gods is the correct interpretation.

JK: Explanations here're little better'n, "How perfect is that hole, that it'd hold that perfect amount of water?"

How perfect is the Universe that it can allow life to thrive within it on just the one planet that we know about?
Is the lack of life as we know it, an indication that no GOD-Creator was involved in the making of it, or can it be argued that it is perfect for that one thing?

Are we able to reverse engineer to a point where we can categorically say with certainty that the evidence supports there is no requirement for us to think that we may exist within a Creation?

If not (I have never been shown such evidence) then I think it is necessary to at least keep that idea on the table for more consideration...as my 'jury' has yet to see all the evidence before it can retire to chambers and think on the best verdict.

Currently there are too many unknowns to make the call...

[William]

William: Where there are Gods which are said to have been created, the questioning of statements that the god was "not created", is reasonable.

Where the statements re a God 'has always existed' - it is unreasonable to be then asking questions as to "how did God come about?" and stuff like that.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #557]

Then God, being it a something must also have been derived.

Is "God being a something" a statement of opinion you are making, or a claim you are making?

I propose that in debate, it's reasonable to challenge any claim.

I propose that before any claim is challenged, that one is confident a claim - rather than a statement of opinion - is being put forth.

If I declare there's a god who got created, I should be honor bound to support my claim

Yes you should be, but it was not a claim you made but a statement of opinion? If the former, then yes, you would need to support you claim...

William: Where the statements re a God 'has always existed' - it is unreasonable to be then asking questions as to "how did God come about?" and stuff like that.

In support of declaring the universe to be "caused" or "created", as above, a claim that's made should be open to challenge, and the claimant with an nth of honor beholden to support the claim.

Agreed. First one must ascertain that the person is making a statement of opinion rather than a claim.

William: A statement that "some thing" cannot derive from "no thing" is logical based on the evidence within the universe, thus cannot be said to be "premature" of knowing differently.

Then God, being it a something must also have been derived.

Since - in this case - you are the one saying so, is it your claim that "God is something" or just your opinion?

From what, we leave to the claimant.

Well, only if'n you are actually making it a claim rather than offering a simple opinion.

There should be no excusing the claimant simply cause a challenge brings em discomfort, or exposes the errors of their thinking.

Indeed. We can cross that bridge as we come to it.

William: Glimmers of evidence to the contrary - while these would be interesting - are simply not enough to support that it is rational to proceed prematurely along the path that any thing can derive from a non-thing.

Cool.

From what glimmer did God, a thing, derive?

You need only answer that if you are claiming God is 'a thing'. First you would have to show that God was 'a thing' [an object of some sort, I am assuming you are meaning] and then we can look at that thing you are referring to as a "God" and see what can be seen therein to support your claim.

William: In the face of the evidence the Universe provides, it is acceptable to have the opinion that "self-causation [of said Universe] is irrational", therefore, it is not a statement from ignorance.

The physical laws governing the Universe show us that every thing in the Universe derives from some thing in the Universe, and scientists appear to be saying that the current science is showing us that the Universe had a beginning.

So we ask such claimant, such scientist, who'd make such a claim, in debate to support their claims in this regard.

Sure. If such scientists are hereabouts, they are welcome to contribute their own opinions or claims on the matter.
Fortunately we have the internet and there are reams of scientific papers available, none of which I have come across that definitively describe God as a 'thing' or claim that God does not exist or claim that we do not exist within a creation... such papers might exist...have you read any?

[All said an done, you and I don't need a "scientist" to tell us our experiences are really experienced by us...]

William: Until it is shown to be otherwise, even that we might like the idea that the Universe has always existed, there is no compelling evidence available to make it so.

Says those proponents of a god that can't be observed, to've "always existed".

Says the science, first and foremost...unless you have scientific information which shows us that this universe has actually always existed...do you have such evidence JK?

[JoeyKnothead]

...

In considering the motivations or methods of an unobserved, omnipotent, omniscient god, we can propose anything, and remain within the bounds of 'logic'.

Only as it pertains to this Universe JK. We can observe the Universe so should at least be able to deduce why any Creator might have created it.

And the best we'll do is, "Cause he wanted to". Any other'n that'll be speculation at best.

For example, we cannot make the claim that the GOD-Creator of this Universe is "omnipotent, omniscient" because we cannot see such attributes in the evidence of the Universe...so that is only an avoidable statement of opinion.

Plenty fair - I was referring to those who make such claims.

If we can point to anything in the Universe and show that a GOD-Creator didn't/couldn't have create that thing, then we can confidently stride in that direction sure that our lack of belief in gods is the correct interpretation.

That depends on where lies the burden of proof.

I can't ever show rainbows ain't unicorn flatulence, so don’t make such a claim.

Explanations here're little better'n, "How perfect is that hole, that it'd hold that perfect amount of water?"

How perfect is the Universe that it can allow life to thrive within it on just the one planet that we know about?

Therein lies the problem with using the subjective to describe the objective.

Considering the scales of time, and the chemicals involved, I consider life to be inevitable within the vastness. That we can contemplate it is neat, but all things considered, unremarkable.

Is the lack of life as we know it, an indication that no GOD-Creator was involved in the making of it, or can it be argued that it is perfect for that one thing?

Beats me - so I make no claims in this regard.

Are we able to reverse engineer to a point where we can categorically say with certainty that the evidence supports there is no requirement for us to think that we may exist within a Creation?

Beats me - so I make no claims in this regard.

If not (I have never been shown such evidence) then I think it is necessary to at least keep that idea on the table for more consideration...as my 'jury' has yet to see all the evidence before it can retire to chambers and think on the best verdict.

My 'jury' has seen enough purported 'evidence' to conclude god claims're better understood as the hopes and wishes, loves and hatreds of men.

Currently there are too many unknowns to make the call...

For me, those "unknowns" regarding gods are due to a lack of evidence for their existence, and various attendant claims.

At some point we realize Santa ain't coming down that chimney, no matter how good, or how rich, we are.