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
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 #281

Post by The Tanager »

5. Omniscience and Creation
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amI haven't argued otherwise. What I am arguing is that the god would have seen what Adam was as a free will being before actually creating Adam. So it cannot be that the god wanted to see for himself what Adam would do. The god already knew what Adam would do.
So if the god did this to show someone that, whoever that was couldn't have been omniscient themselves. They had to see what would happen if the god created a free will being and placed that being into a situation where that being was able to use his free will.
God didn't have to create it for the reason of someone finding out what would happen even if one result would be the humans themselves, other humans, and other creatures finding out what they would do. God could have created humans so that they could make choices and, hopefully, choose the loving community.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
The assumption that they were created immortal works against the main strain of your argument. You believe. [correct me if need be]

1: The were created with free will
2: The god knew that they would choose to eat the forbidden fruit

Therefore, why would the god create them immortal?
Their mortality is a result of their action, not a result of God knowing what their action would be. If God did what you are saying, then humans would get the wrong idea.
?
If I misunderstood you, then I'm sorry. You seemed to me to be saying that an omniscient God knew they would sin and, therefore, would have made them mortal from the start. I was saying that if God did that, then humans would not think that their mortality was a result of their sin, but God's design for them all along, which would be wrong.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amBecause one cannot have a deep relationship with [] an omniscient being if one does not trust the being is omniscient. What use is free will in that circumstance?
If one trusts the outcome is perfect, then one accepts that the whole story from start to conclusion is also perfect. Right and wrong become redundant positions. Good and bad become meaningless conditions.
I don't see why you think that follows. What do you mean that the outcome is "perfect"?
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmIF a being said the words "Trust me I love You" to me, AND that being was indeed omniscient, THEN I would see no logic in NOT trusting said being was telling the truth.

However, I am in no position to KNOW that such a being was in fact omniscient...so in that I would doubt. It is natural.
Doubt isn't sin. Acting in a certain way on that doubt when one doesn't have to and even has better reason not to is the sin.

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 #282

Post by The Tanager »

6. Good and Evil

Meanings
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amIf the god cannot be harmed or even harm his self, how is the god to be concerned about matter of good or evil from his perspective? Do you refer to him as 'good' simply because he cannot be harmed?
No, that is not why I call God 'good'. I mean that God only wishes and does good for other beings.


Critiques
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
No, one could also understand that God created this reality for some reason in spite of knowing He would feel sorrow.
Yes I suppose if one didn't really understand that an omniscient creator has no need to feel sorrow, that could be understood. Otherwise, no.
If God is good, then evil would be those things which God does not want to happen. From this it logically follows that when humans do evil things, such a God would be upset or sorrowful at that.

Perhaps the miscommunication is over what "sorrow" means? How do you understand that term?
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmMy critique is that IF the god [The Creator] is indeed omniscient, then none of this need be seen as crime and punishment, because to do so is to see The Creator in a 'bad' light which is not a 'good' light.
Why does seeing God as punishing/giving consequences painting God in a "'bad' light"?
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmThus [in relation to your previous statement] the transformation of Earth into 'a place where the gods reign exists', requires that the evil is transformed. Otherwise if it were a simple case of removing the evil, this could have been accomplished right from the go-get by not creating Adam in the first place.
Since Adam was created by the god and the god knew how it ALL would transpire - how eventually things would work out just fine, the god went along and created Adam. Evil in that sense is only and simply can only be a temporary state in regard to the whole story [still unfolding for us but already known completely by the god].
Human beings, who commit real evils, are transformed (Heaven) or removed (Hell). Evil, itself, is not transformed.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
Is this what you mean by “knowledge of good and evil” or what I mean by it (i.e., experiencing deciding for themselves what is good and evil)? I think knowing what is truly good and what is truly evil is good; deciding it for one’s self is not good.
One is real and the other fiction? We cannot know what is truly good and what is truly evil without deciding for one's self what is not good [or not evil]. Your argument is contradictory in that light.

In order to overcome the contradiction, I argue that we have to dispense with pretending we know the difference and learn how not to judge or view things through the lens of good and evil because these are by and large all fictional concepts.
Our trying to decide what is good/evil should take God's wisdom into account. Some judgments are easier than others. It's very easy to see that torturing a child is evil, for instance. Doing away with good and evil isn't the answer. It's more of the same, where what is truly evil we call "neither good or evil," or a part of the "perfect".
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
William wrote: Wed Jan 06, 2021 9:58 pm
For an omniscient being to proclaim something is 'good' must mean that the whole circumstance, including the advent of evil-to-be, is all 'good' or 'as it should/has to be'.
In that position, one does not have to deal with ideas of 'good AND evil' Everything was proclaimed acceptable in the sight of the god.
That does not mean thinking that the evil that will result (but didn’t have to) is good or as it should be, however. I don’t see why anyone would worship a being that doesn’t discern between child abuse and loving a child, thinking that loving the child is how things ought to be.
That is a description of internal process all can choose to go through of their own free will.
The evil did have to result given the god is omniscient. Otherwise the god would have had to ignore his knowledge and place false hope that 'perhaps maybe' they would choose not to. For an omniscient being to ignore what he knows to be true in favor of focusing on what he hopes 'might' happen denotes a being who is not trusting his own knowledge is 'good' knowledge [as in whole knowledge] which itself is an interesting concept, but - sticking to the task at hand - I think it best that we don't assume that, so we are left with the only other option. Evil HAD to be experienced first hand through the human instrument in order for the gods love to be understood.
God's omniscience doesn't make the evil have to happen. That it happened is what gives the omniscient one the knowledge. Thus, God isn't ignoring knowledge and placing a false hope that what happens will not happen that way. Allowing what happens to actually happen that way does not mean that everything that happens is perfect and loved by God. Evil didn't HAVE to be experienced first hand. Whether it was experienced or not is primarily up to the humans, not to God. The ability for humans to choose to experience it or not is up to God; what they choose isn't.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
No, on two fronts. First, I don’t think that Heaven (or Hell) are other places we go to when we die was the initial Christian understanding, so I wouldn’t necessarily call that view the “traditional” sense. Second, this doesn’t mean I see Heaven (or Hell) as a different planet. It would be more like Heaven (and Hell) are realms that overlap our realm, occupying the same physical location.
Simulations interacting together but not yet merged. I am fine with that understanding as I have come to that conclusion myself.
Calling all three of these (Heaven, Hell, our Universe) realms was confusing on my part. Perhaps it more accurate for me to say that Heaven and Hell are the only two descriptions of reality. Every part of our Universe (and the spiritual Universe) are either a part of Heaven or Hell.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amWhat about when a volcano buries hundreds of humans, or anything of that natural scale which harms humans?
I don't see that as an evil. I see events like volcanoes as possibly integral to us having a physical environment to live in at all. If people live close to such occurrences, then injury and death will naturally happen as a result.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmCollateral damage the innocent perish on account of the wicked because - apparently - there is no other way for an omniscient being to deal with the problem? That is illogical.
This came up from the Noah story, God killing animals and damaging the Earth along with humans for human wickedness. What are the other ways for us to consider against the one Genesis says God chose? I'm open minded to consider them against each other, so let's come up with a list of logically possible options. What do you think should go on that list?

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 #283

Post by The Tanager »

7. No Good and Evil

Clarifications Needed
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amMy critique is in the notion that once done, the being - so choosing, still has free will, which appears to be what you are arguing.
I am arguing that sincere, real trust would only be seen that way IF the one claiming to trust the being, no longer saw things through the lens of good and evil and judgement.
What's the reasoning for that conclusion, though? If you've already given it, then I don't think it is a good conclusion for reasons I've shared. If not, then please share it for me to consider it.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmThe omniscient god knows that their good days in the garden are numbered. The god knows that they do not have enough self awareness to be able to survive in the wider world they are destined for. The god knows that having the knowledge of both good and evil can only happen when they experience fear, guilt, shame, embarrassment and the god knows that they will not be able to experience those things unless the god commands them NOT to do something and they do it anyway.

That is called a 'process'. The omniscient god knew all these things before he created all these things.
Thus [as I have and continue to argue] the author writes in a manner which wants to place the focus of evil onto a natural situation whilst at the same time also places focus of good onto the creator of said natural situation.

This creates an oxymoron which can only be rationalized IF neither the creator nor the creation were good or evil. Just natural.

What the author doesn't seem to realize its that in writing what was written, the author doesn't stay consistent.
For example, the truth [in regard to the story/mythology as presented] is actually not "if they eat of the forbidden fruit they will surely die", but is actually "if the don't eat of the fruit of life they will surely die."
Thus, the author is making a liar out of the god in the way the author presents the text. [which we are able to critique]
Why do you think they can't know good and evil without experiencing fear, guilt, shame, and embarrasment? Without supporting that the rest of your conclusions all fail.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amAs long as the tree of life was accessible. They had no internal mechanism in which to achieve immortality. They were not created immortal, as the mythology clearly indicates.
So if one were morally neutral AND had access to the tree of life, [be immortal] that would be acceptable.
By morally neutral you mean not seeing through the lens of good/evil, right? If so, then such a situation would be logically consistent with a God who does not see good/evil. So, why think that kind of God is better than a God who distinguishes good from evil?
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pm
What does it mean for the results to “work out fine”? I don’t think universal salvation is needed (although I do think God desires universal salvation).
Universal salvation tends towards justice for ripple effect created misinformation. Evil resulted. It will pass and all will be saved from it.
That seems to rely upon humans not being responsible for their actions. Why not? Evil resulted not because people don't have enough information and if they knew enough they would choose the good. Evil results because we want to have control and think we know better.

What guarantees to you that all will be saved? What if they don't want to return? If free will exists, then there must be a chance that not all choose to return.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 am
What is the goal you see GOD has in Creation?
I think it is similar to your own, only on a larger time-scale and the result is going to be that everyone ever involved in this as an individual will come to that point eventually and no one will be annihilated and I think this will be the case because an omniscient being would not create all this if i the omniscient being knew that any would be lost as a result of going through the experience of said creation.

I suppose that is my idea of a 'good' Creator when all is said and done.
But why do you think that a 'good' [what does that even mean in your worldview where there is no good or evil?] Creator would not do it if any would be lost? Why must it be 100% to be called a 'good' choice?
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 12:13 amTake the human being. Now address the science regarding the human form. We see that the form is literally an environment for a whole assortment of life-forms scurrying around doing what they do in their robotic manner.
In the same way we can view the planet - a form which is an environment for a whole assortment of life-forms scurrying around doing what they do in their robotic manner.

Mirror mirror - you have been given two example where a "being" is also an "environment"
Yes, that's true. I guess my poorly worded question was more about why believe all environments are beings. Just because a being can be an environment, that doesn't mean they have to be both. So, why think our environment (the Universe) is also a being?


Critiques
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmYou say it is because of love and that the god wanted the free will being to experience love and to reflect that love back to the creator.
I say if that is the case, then 'no foul' all is as it need be as it changes day to day. Concept of good and evil have only served to cloud that logical conclusion and can be easily sourced as being the actual the reason humans harming humans has occurred. Because humans decided to work it out for themselves using concepts of good and evil as their guiding light...and injecting what they thought was the correct idea of The Creator into that type of conjecture.
Do you think harm is evil? You seem to. But how could harm be evil (or any synonym of that concept) if there is no true good and evil? If evil is an illusion, then so is harm. As I see it, the problem is that humans decided to work it out for themselves using wrong concepts of good and evil instead of correct ones, not because they see good and evil as real things.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmYou and other Christians (and as I have also pointed out, other religions and even atheists) all operate under the same program of assigning good and evil to objects within nature. in other words "play the blame game" and as such, any god idea [especially one of an omniscient being] which also is involved with playing that game, is - by that very thing - part of the blame. It is unavoidable, even if one writes text in a manner attempting to conceal that, as the writer of the genesis mythology has obviously done when we use logic to question it in relation to our free will being exercised.
The blame game is saying that I'm not responsible for my actions, someone else is. That's different than saying X is good and Y is bad.
William wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:11 pmEffectively, this is the focus of my critique. In order to play the blame game, one must first have some idea as to what good and bad are. If we are to cease with playing that game, we need to let go of such notions.
We could cease playing that game by letting go of notions that we are not responsible for our own choices as well. So, why your answer and not this one?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #284

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #272]

Here is an interesting article on free will and robots...[Link]

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 #285

Post by Diogenes »

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #1]
In other words, a list of handy excuses for why prayer does not work.

Several apologists have answered in kind, that if your prayer isn't answered, there's something wrong with you OR...
Your prayer did not coincide with "God's will." This is an interesting suggestion since it suggests only prayers that agree with God's will are answered. One would think 'God' does what he wills anyway, so what's the point of prayer?
... and why isn't it in "God's Will" to heal the millions of afflicted whose prayers (and whose families' prayers) are not answered.

Contrast this with what Jesus said:
"For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”

Apparently God already has his mountains where he wants them. ... and yet... why did Jesus claim we can move mountains through prayer, even if we only have a little faith?
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #286

Post by brunumb »

Diogenes wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 9:45 pm [Replying to unknown soldier in post #1]
In other words, a list of handy excuses for why prayer does not work.

Several apologists have answered in kind, that if your prayer isn't answered, there's something wrong with you OR...
Your prayer did not coincide with "God's will." This is an interesting suggestion since it suggests only prayers that agree with God's will are answered. One would think 'God' does what he wills anyway, so what's the point of prayer?
... and why isn't it in "God's Will" to heal the millions of afflicted whose prayers (and whose families' prayers) are not answered.

Contrast this with what Jesus said:
"For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”

Apparently God already has his mountains where he wants them. ... and yet... why did Jesus claim we can move mountains through prayer, even if we only have a little faith?
Ah, but wait dear Diogenes. A quick consult of the 'Giant Omnibus of Christian Loopholes' will reveal that although there is a promise that the prayer will be answered, there is no indication of when. So, thousands of years after the petitioner has died and the prayer is long forgotten, God may decide that it is time to answer and that mountain will be moved.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

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 #287

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to Diogenes in post #285]

Faith isn’t about choosing which mountains to move. Biblically, faith is about placing one’s trust in God. One who trusts God seeks wisdom on what mountains should be moved and then trusts that, in God’s power, that mountain can be moved, including what role they are to play in its moving.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #288

Post by Tcg »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:53 am [Replying to Diogenes in post #285]

Faith isn’t about choosing which mountains to move. Biblically, faith is about placing one’s trust in God. One who trusts God seeks wisdom on what mountains should be moved and then trusts that, in God’s power, that mountain can be moved, including what role they are to play in its moving.
Biblically, Jesus doesn't mention any of that:
Matthew 17:20 He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”
Of course, this is best understood as hyperbole and there's no reason to suspect any mountain, or mole hill for that matter, to ever move anywhere.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

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 #289

Post by TRANSPONDER »

That's correct. The fact is that Jesus, in the Bible, makes a plain guarantee of prayers being answered without any small print or escape -clauses. 'sometimes God says No' is no more than excuses as to why prayer doesn't work, and in fact debunks the assurance in the Gospels that it will.

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 #290

Post by The Tanager »

[Replying to Tcg in post #288]

Yes, Jesus was clearly speaking metaphorically about mountains being physically moved. And we must take the full context of Jesus’ teachings into account. Jesus does speak about trusting in God and asking for wisdom. The Greek word here (oligopistos) is used 5 times. In each one there is a contrast between faith in God and this “little faith”.

Don’t worry about tomorrow, but trust God to provide what you need (Matt 6:30/Luke 12:28), don’t fear a storm but trust that Jesus can still it if he wants (Matt 8:26), don’t look at the wind and waves, but trust what Jesus tells you to do (Matt 14:31), don’t trust in the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadduccees, but trust in the one who multiplied the fishes and loaves (Matt 16:8-12), and our passage, where Jesus is able to send the demon out, while the disciples had “little faith”. All of these are about trusting God and looking to Jesus’ teachings and wisdom over others, including one’s own thoughts at times.

Post Reply