Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
unknown soldier
Banned
Banned
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:32 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 122 times

Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #361

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 3:36 pm 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.

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:19 pmYou presented torture as an 'objective' moral value, and I showed the errancy of that thinking.
No, I didn’t. I presented “torturing a person for not believing in your worldview” as an objective moral value. Just as one could say killing another person out of self-defense is morally permissible, but killing them because they stepped on your grass is not.
The operative word here is torture.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #362

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 3:36 pm 1D. Math

P1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence.
P2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:19 pmIt shouldn't be surprising at all that humans, sentient and all, can describe their environment.

Where you see some magical entity behind it, I just see an observation of it.

The scenario I talked about isn’t describing one’s environment. It’s using math to find out a truth about our environment that we didn’t know was true.
You musta jumped clean clear of your desk when you found out naught and one is one.

I remember I was the proudest boy in fifth grade when I did.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #363

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 3:35 pm

Argument 1

There are two types of causal explanation: scientific (in terms of laws and initial conditions) and personal (agents and their volitions). And of the two only science has been proven to exist. Agents and their volitions have not. A first state of spatio-temporal matter cannot have a scientific explanation because there is nothing physical before it, So what? I hope you don't think this automatically gives credence to your agents and their volitions. Because it does not, and in the end science is all that's important because so far its been the only method to reliably explain reality i.e, It cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions, so far. . . And "so far" doesn't exhaust all possibilities. Science is far from done. Therefore, it can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation. Prove it, because so far all I've seen are claims with no supporting evidence.

Argument 2

The personhood of the First Cause is powerfully suggested by the other properties argued for (which we could go over, if you wish). Perhaps in your world, but not in mine. As I see it, the personhood of the First Cause is more wishful thinking than anything else. The seemingly only two candidate concepts that can be described as immaterial, eternal, timeless, and spaceless are abstract objects and an unembodied mind. But abstract objects are not involved in causal relations. Therefore, the cause of spatio-temporal matter must be an unembodied mind.

Argument 3

Only personal, free agency can account for a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. Not at all. In fact, free agency is an illusion people have concocted to save their sense of personal control, which they also project onto their god.If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then the effect would be eternal. Why? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How could some free agency be sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How could the cause exist without the effect? And why must the cause rest in a someone and not a something? For instance, if the temperature has always been below freezing, then any H2O that existed would have been eternally ice. There wouldn’t have been a point where it changed from water to ice. The best way out of this dilemma is agent causation. What dilemma? So what if the ice in asteroids and comets had formed as such from the combination of hydrogen atoms in space and the oxygen atoms on these objects in the cold of outer space, as has been theorized? In this, the agent freely brings about some event in the absence of prior determining conditions, initiating new effects by choice. OR, how about the physics of asteroid formation? Now there's a thought! Hmmm. In agent causation, the agent-cause could be eternal and the effect temporal. How? How could the agent-cause could be eternal and the effect temporal? Merely stating a possibility certainly doesn't give it any more truth value than its negation.

Miles wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:11 pmIf you look carefully in your textbook you'll note that modus ponens will likely be stated as:

p→q
p
∴ q

This means:

Your P3. cannot be a statement with a singular term. It has to be stated as "If p then q"
Your P4 cannot be a statement with two terms, but has to be the singular, p
Then your conclusion will be q.

A good logic textbook makes it clear that it doesn’t matter which order the first and second premise are in. But you can also just treat my argument as two separate arguments, as well, and do this:
A good logic textbook will also tell you that the major and minor premises of a syllogism cannot always be transposed, and that in modus ponens the major premise is conditional, that is, it must begin with "If," which means

p
p→q
∴ q

is not allowed. But on to your argument.

R1. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
R2. The spatio-temporal universe had a cause. [Argued via P1-P3 of my Kalam]
R3. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).
Problem here is that for a syllogism to be meaningful, i.e. sound, its premises must be true. So, is it true that if "If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal?" Perhaps, but until you can actually establish this as true it remains only a "perhaps" and not a truth, which makes your argument unsound.


.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #364

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:00 pm"As I said, it’s the argument for Jesus’ resurrection that I believe points to a specific god concept" <--- This is what you did say and what I addressed.
Now please tell me, where do the arguments for the resurrection stem from if not from the Bible? The Book is your reason. It is your idol as there is no other source for the diety you have chosen to believe in. If I'm wrong, please evidence the source for your god that is not the Bible. You should probably evidence the resurrection from another source as well while you are at it. Unless I'm correct of course and the source is the Bible as I claim.
Where in the Bible is the argument (in bold above) I gave for the resurrection?
No idea and why would I care?
The arguments for the resurrection stem from Bible. This book is your reason for belief. If I'm wrong, and the book is not your reason for belief, I then asked that you evidence the source for your god that is not from within the Bible. You dodged this direct question.
Where, in my support, did I say P1 is true because the Bible says those are the three facts surrounding the resurrection?
Find it yourself, I care not about your P1.
Why ask me to find such a thing in place of answering the questions I posed?
Using the Bible as a historical source to glean truth from is not using “The Book as [my] reason”.
Yes it is. The book is your reason for the historical source. There is no other source if a person wants to learn about the god concept contained in the Bible. The Quran for example is the source for a competing god concept. It doesn't get much simpler.
Remember when I asked this above: If I'm wrong, please evidence the source for your god that is not the Bible.
All six of my arguments are arguments for the supernatural. What you are doing here, to extend your analogy, is that I’m giving an argument for unicorns and then you ask me for a different argument for unicorns instead of responding to the one I made.

Or, to use a more scientific analogy, it’s like a scientist showing you the natural effects that lead to us positing the existence of electrons and then you asking them to prove that electrons exist prior to listening to their argument from effects to electrons being the cause
I don't think you thought this through.
Would you like evidence for electrons?
I would like it for resurrections and also point out that your only source for resurrections comes from a religous holy book. Are religious holy books as good as evidence as what we can find/suggest for electrons?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #365

Post by The Tanager »

1A. Kalam

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

Miles wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pmAnd of the two only science has been proven to exist. Agents and their volitions have not.

This is an argument for there having to be a personal agent. The actual existence of a personal agent (rather than just the possible existence of one) is a conclusion. To say that this argument fails because personal agents aren’t proven to exist is to ask one to prove their argument in a different way than what was offered instead of dealing with the argument given. If this argument is sound, then it shows that the effect we agree exists (our spatio-temporal universe) couldn’t exist without a personal agent to cause it to exist. Since this effect exists, a personal agent must have existed to cause it.
Miles wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pmin the end science is all that's important because so far its been the only method to reliably explain reality

Science relies on philosophical premises being true to be a reliable explanation of reality. Thus, it logically can’t be the only method to reliably explain reality.
Miles wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pmso far. . . And "so far" doesn't exhaust all possibilities. Science is far from done.



Prove it, because so far all I've seen are claims with no supporting evidence.

By definition there can’t be a scientific explanation of the first state of the universe because that would require a prior state of initial conditions and laws to explain the 'first state'. You can’t have a state that is prior to a first state. That would be logically absurd and logically absurd things can’t exist.
Miles wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pm
The personhood of the First Cause is powerfully suggested by the other properties argued for (which we could go over, if you wish).

Perhaps in your world, but not in mine. As I see it, the personhood of the First Cause is more wishful thinking than anything else.
The seemingly only two candidate concepts that can be described as immaterial, eternal, timeless, and spaceless are abstract objects and an unembodied mind. But abstract objects are not involved in causal relations. Therefore, the cause of spatio-temporal matter must be an unembodied mind.

My world here is rational discourse. The only objects that are conceptually immaterial, timeless, and spaceless (if such a thing existed) are abstract objects and unembodied minds. The cause of the spatio-temporal universe (given the other premises being true, which is assumed true for this critique to even come up) is eternal, timeless, and spaceless. Thus, the cause must either be an abstract object or an unembodied mind. Abstract objects don’t have causal power. That leaves an unembodied mind.
Miles wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pmNot at all. In fact, free agency is an illusion people have concocted to save their sense of personal control, which they also project onto their god.

Your support for this claim?
Miles wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pmHow could some free agency be sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause?

Because a free agent can decide to do something or not. A free agent’s effects don’t have to come into existence once the conditions needed are met because the free agent can decide not to go through with it.

Impersonal forces, on the other hand, simply produce their effects when all the conditions are there. If all the conditions are eternally there, then all the effects are also eternally there.
Miles wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 7:59 pmWhat dilemma? So what if the ice in asteroids and comets had formed as such from the combination of hydrogen atoms in space and the oxygen atoms on these objects in the cold of outer space, as has been theorized?

I think you are missing the point. If the conditions for the atoms combining are eternal, then the atoms would have eternally been combined. The conditions couldn’t have been present and no atoms combined and then, all of the sudden, with no change in the conditions, the atoms combined (and therefore did not always exist, like the conditions, but came into existence).

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #366

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 2:06 pm 1A. Kalam

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).
Okay. So a striped elephant wearing plaid overalls created it all.

Or how bout a bass boat? Created an entire universe just to have a lake on which to float?

This Kalam thing is ultimately just a word salad that doesn't explain anything. It merely seems to support a god's involvement.

We can define a 'first cause' we can't show exists any way we want, and ol Kalam there's just pleased as punch.

"Okay, so what does this argument tell us about the world?"

"He dont like how you act!"

Just like any god concept, the use of Kalam is merely a means to the ends of declaring a god I can't show exists has opinions I can't show he does, and don't it beat all, his opinions are my own.

That's all it is. It's merely words pouring into a gap in our knowledge.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #367

Post by Diogenes »

As if the 'Kalam' argument were not silly enough, it has to plug in "and personal" as an attribute of the unknown cause or 'causeless cause' or whatever kind of Italian sausage they throw into the grinder to come up with a result that fulfills their premise.

In the final analysis the proponents make a special pleading for their 'god.' "O! God!" they cry, as if this supplies the missing elements of their empty argument.
'God' is how they define whatever essential quality they deny to everything else... then they stand back and exclaim, "God is special!" :D
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7955
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #368

Post by TRANSPONDER »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:05 pmI was going to say 'No,' but maybe I am. Because I'm saying that a hypothesis that nothing that creates (becomes) something has less to explain than a claim of a intelligence that creates something, because one has to explain where the creator came from. That is, as you say, two things. Aside that an intelligent creator may imply many things to explain.

Tanager
If this ‘Nothing’ is truly a Something, then it’s in the same boat as ‘God’. Neither comes from anywhere because they are eternal. It may be simpler in the sense of one thing becomes a different thing, while God creates a second, separate thing. That would mean something if all else was equal, but I think the argument for the cause being personal shows all things aren’t equal.

If this ‘Nothing’ is rightly named, a true nothingness, then our universe is simply uncaused and popped into existence. I’ve already given a short summary of why I think this is not the rational position to take..

There's the problem, which you half seem to get - nothing and God are in the same boat. Both are counter intuitive or rather non - rational because we are used to everything having a cause. Appealing to an uncreated complex intelligent being to get out of this is emotional and instinctive (if anything exists a person must have made it) and as non rational as 'something from nothing'. But a nothing that can function as a something (energy) requires less to explain than a god. Name your own.

Because that's the reason that Kalam does not help any particular religion. Even if the argument is valid (and one can hypothesise that the cosmos or - alternatively - the universe that formed within it) had a start -off, it doesn't tell us which god it is. Aside that you argue that this Cause' is "God",I know the apologetic that Lane Craig doesn't mention a god or an intelligent creator, but a cause. Very well, I argue above that a non intelligent cause posits less logical entities than an intelligent creator and so is more logically sound, for all that they are in the same counter -intuitive boat.

The thing is that kalam is not actually a problem for atheism (though some seem to think it is, but they reckon that it's an argument for Biblegod, which it isn't thought really at bottom it is) because It All either had a Cause or it has always existed. 50/50. Atheists probably aren't bothered by the idea of an intelligent creator as there is no reason why it should care about man -made religions. Kalam is really not a helpful argument for Religious apologists, though non -religious theists may find it useful.

The assumption that the 'cause is personal' is logically invalid; it is assuming what you are trying to prove - an intelligent Creator. Your claim that you already gave reasons for your position being 'rational' have been refuted.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7955
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #369

Post by TRANSPONDER »

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 3:24 am
If I get you correctly, yes. It's an equivocation I come across at times:
The Bible may be presented as 'evidence' but that does not make it evidence that should be taken as valid ("Good evidence"). I think that Believers do argue from an assumption that the Bible is true until disproved, which is not really the case. "Like any other Book", as they say, we have to assess any book as to whether it passes as good evidence, and doubts and questions are valid. The Believers suppose they only need to answer the doubts and questions, and the Bible is valid as Good evidence. Which is ok so far as that goes, But the problem is that their answers are not good ones.

Too often they rely on assumption that the Bible is true until disproven, and all they need to do is come up with some poor excuse or far - fetched explanation, Or just deny everything, and they have validated the Bible. No - when doubts and question arise, the validity of the Bible itself in question.
Tanager...(if I remember correctly)
I’m doing the complete opposite. I’m saying we start with assuming nothing in the Bible is true until we have enough evidence to consider individual details/events within it, while still not claiming the other parts are historically true.
:D Well that suits me fine. Atheist apologists often take the same view, and I'm rather unusual in that I suggest that the Bible be considered as valid as any other book until there is good reason to doubt and question it. You can hardly have missed that many, including myself, have very good reasons to doubt and question it.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #370

Post by The Tanager »

1A. Kalam

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 7:33 pmOkay. So a striped elephant wearing plaid overalls created it all.

Or how bout a bass boat? Created an entire universe just to have a lake on which to float?

Both of these candidates are ruled out because of P4.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 7:33 pmWe can define a 'first cause' we can't show exists any way we want, and ol Kalam there's just pleased as punch.

"Okay, so what does this argument tell us about the world?"

"He dont like how you act!"

Just like any god concept, the use of Kalam is merely a means to the ends of declaring a god I can't show exists has opinions I can't show he does, and don't it beat all, his opinions are my own.

That's all it is. It's merely words pouring into a gap in our knowledge.

We aren’t defining the first cause any way we want, the existence and characteristics of a first cause are logical conclusions from the premises. Critique the premises to move the discussion forward.
Diogenes wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 8:00 pm As if the 'Kalam' argument were not silly enough, it has to plug in "and personal" as an attribute of the unknown cause or 'causeless cause' or whatever kind of Italian sausage they throw into the grinder to come up with a result that fulfills their premise.

In the final analysis the proponents make a special pleading for their 'god.' "O! God!" they cry, as if this supplies the missing elements of their empty argument.
'God' is how they define whatever essential quality they deny to everything else... then they stand back and exclaim, "God is special!" :D

No, three arguments were given for “and personal”. Critique the premises to move the discussion forward.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:30 amThere's the problem, which you half seem to get - nothing and God are in the same boat. Both are counter intuitive or rather non - rational because we are used to everything having a cause. Appealing to an uncreated complex intelligent being to get out of this is emotional and instinctive (if anything exists a person must have made it) and as non rational as 'something from nothing'. But a nothing that can function as a something (energy) requires less to explain than a god. Name your own.

It’s logically impossible for everything to have a cause. There must be something eternal. ‘Nothing’, if truly named, isn’t a thing at all and so it can’t have any characteristics, including being eternal. That leaves (1) a ‘Nothing’ (that is poorly named and really ‘Something’) that is impersonal and a personal ‘Something’. Via the argument, (not emotion and instinct) this eternal thing must also be personal. So, the personal ‘Something’ (the “God” concept) is more rational than both the “Nothing” and the impersonal “Something”; they aren’t in the same boat.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:30 amBecause that's the reason that Kalam does not help any particular religion. Even if the argument is valid (and one can hypothesise that the cosmos or - alternatively - the universe that formed within it) had a start -off, it doesn't tell us which god it is. Aside that you argue that this Cause' is "God",I know the apologetic that Lane Craig doesn't mention a god or an intelligent creator, but a cause.

Craig does connect the cause with characteristics that he says humans have traditionally identified with the God of classical theism. This, alone (as I’ve said already) doesn’t get us Christian theism. My case is a cumulative case using all arguments to narrow down a particular religion.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:30 amThe thing is that kalam is not actually a problem for atheism (though some seem to think it is, but they reckon that it's an argument for Biblegod, which it isn't thought really at bottom it is) because It All either had a Cause or it has always existed. 50/50.

It doesn’t say 50/50, but argues that the universe couldn’t have always existed.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 6:30 amThe assumption that the 'cause is personal' is logically invalid; it is assuming what you are trying to prove - an intelligent Creator. Your claim that you already gave reasons for your position being 'rational' have been refuted.

How were the 3 arguments I offered for the cause being personal an assumption?

Post Reply