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?

[brunumb]

Therefore "I don't know" is the most rational answer to the Kalam argument.

Agreed. When one has accepted and believes in Jesus it becomes necessary to establish his provenance. We have to go back beyond Yahweh/Jehovah/God as represented in the OT and present a solid case for the existence of gods in general. When one is faced with "we don't know" that does nothing to prop up prior held beliefs. So we end up with special pleading and all sorts of excuses that allow a god into the mix to the exclusion of matter and energy behaving in ways that we don't yet know but which are purely natural without any supernatural element.

[Tcg]

Who here, who among us, who is so knowing, and so proud to tell they know the condition of the universe prior to the big bang?

Right here! That'd be me! Oh, wait, yeah, I don't know. I'm not even sure I know the condition of the universe now. I know it's big right? Even Texas would seem small in comparison. But what I do know is that "not knowing" isn't evidence that some something else must have caused it and therefore that something else exists.


Tcg

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[JoeyKnothead]

[Diagoras]

[JoeyKnothead]

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.

Beats me. I only know if I don't take my meds, I end up to getting me a random color of jello every afternoon at 2, except on Sunday, then it's ice cream.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.

Beats me. I only know if I don't take my meds, I end up to getting me a random color of jello every afternoon at 2, except on Sunday, then it's ice cream.

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for minds, then are they indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent?