Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

[unknown soldier]

If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:

1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.

I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.

Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."

I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!

Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.

Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?

Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?

[The Tanager]

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’).

You fail, in your P2, to establish the universe "began to exist". This is important in light of your declaring the cause of the universe to have "always" existed.

You simply can't, and won't ever show your claim in P2 is factually correct.

Let's say that agian... You simply can't, and won't ever show your claim in P2 is factually correct.

SButyeah, we can comfort ourselves in "Why by golly, that's it some sound logic right there", if and only if we accept you speak truth regarding your claim in P2.

Why can’t one show that P2 is most reasonably true? Or perhaps you mean it’s not logically ruled out but I haven’t shown it is most reasonably true? If the first, then what is your argument for that claim? If the second, then help me understand why you think so. What part of the summary of my support do you not understand or disagree with?

I said that (1) the strongest scientific theories posit a beginning to the spatio-temporal universe. However, if one thinks the science is uncertain here (which is certainly a reasonable position to take), I noted two philosophical arguments in support. These were (2) logical absurdities seem to follow if an actually infinite number of things existed, which seem to count against its reasonableness and (3) even if an actually infinite number of things could exist, the amount of past events in our reality could not be an actual infinite (while it would need to be an actual infinite for the spatio-temporal universe to be eternal).

[The Tanager]

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.

That's why the need to invoke little kids when speaking of torture.

I think we are rational enough to not let our emotions cloud our logical analysis. To best do that we need to pick something that gets our emotions flowing, otherwise one may just be fooling oneself on the issue.

Which part of my reasons for P1 do you disagree with?

(1) Do you think atheistic evolutionary accounts lead to objective morality?
(2) Do you think atheistic platonic accounts have merit?

And for P2 what do you disagree with?

(1) Is torturing an innocent child in line with your common sense?
(2) Is torturing an innocent child accepted as moral within various cultures?

Torturing a child invokes an emotional subjective response to me.

Okay. So, the problem (at least, that you want to focus on right now) is with P2, not P1. Let’s explore your subjective response more. Is it the same kind of response you have to someone liking pistachio ice cream (or whatever flavor you detest)? If not, what’s the difference?

As to the history of human views on torturing an innocent child, do you think all cultures have agreed with your emotional response to such an act?

I think it's important to note that "torture" is the operative word here, and that, if the tale be told, God himself decreed a woman oughta forever feel pain when birthing em a young'n. All cause one of em had the unmitigated gall to wanna learn. Stoopid wimmins.

This is irrelevant. My arguments do not rely on the Bible being completely truthful, so even if your interpretation is correct here (I don’t think that is what the passage states), that says nothing against the arguments I shared.

[The Tanager]

2. Resurrection

P1. There are 3 established facts concerning the fate of Jesus: discovery of an empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples’ belief in his resurrection
P2. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these facts.
P3. This hypothesis entails that the God revealed by Jesus exists
P4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus exists.

NEWSFLASH! Belief in 'psychics' ghosts, unicorns, fairies, angels, demons, gods, goddesses, assorted supernatural twaddle, is all one of a kind. Trying to dress this silliness up with 'Kalam' arguments and pretentious sillyjisims, fake 'history' and other forms of barnyard graffiti only further exposes the nonsense for what it is.

If you want to show why it’s nonsense, to move the discussion forward rationally, then please do so. Otherwise, this is just empty rhetoric.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #410]

If you think any of what you said applies to my posts, then please show me where you think I have done those things. If they don't, then this is no place for such a post since we are discussing the arguments I have made.

[JoeyKnothead]

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’).

You fail, in your P2, to establish the universe "began to exist". This is important in light of your declaring the cause of the universe to have "always" existed.

You simply can't, and won't ever show your claim in P2 is factually correct.

Let's say that agian... You simply can't, and won't ever show your claim in P2 is factually correct.

But yeah, we can comfort ourselves in "Why by golly, that's it some sound logic right there", if and only if we accept you speak truth regarding your claim in P2.

Why can’t one show that P2 is most reasonably true?

Cause "reasonably" is a subjective term.

Or perhaps you mean it’s not logically ruled out but I haven’t shown it is most reasonably true? If the first, then what is your argument for that claim? If the second, then help me understand why you think so. What part of the summary of my support do you not understand or disagree with?

See above. Who decides what's "reasonable"?

I said that (1) the strongest scientific theories posit a beginning to the spatio-temporal universe.

They positI, not prove.

However, if one thinks the science is uncertain here (which is certainly a reasonable position to take), I noted two philosophical arguments in support.

I'm under no obligation to refute your claims, or to provide support for claims I ain't made.

You're the claimant, you're the burdenee.

These were (2) logical absurdities seem to follow if an actually infinite number of things existed, which seem to count against its reasonableness and (3) even if an actually infinite number of things could exist, the amount of past events in our reality could not be an actual infinite (while it would need to be an actual infinite for the spatio-temporal universe to be eternal).

Again, who decides who gets to define a subjective term - "reasonable"?

I fail to see where this argument supports your contention of the universe being created.

Thus we're left with, "There she sits, and ain't she a beaut."

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

That's why the need to invoke little kids when speaking of torture.

I think we are rational enough to not let our emotions cloud our logical analysis. To best do that we need to pick something that gets our emotions flowing, otherwise one may just be fooling oneself on the issue.

Which part of my reasons for P1 do you disagree with?

(1) Do you think atheistic evolutionary accounts lead to objective morality?
(2) Do you think atheistic platonic accounts have merit?

And for P2 what do you disagree with?

(1) Is torturing an innocent child in line with your common sense?
(2) Is torturing an innocent child accepted as moral within various cultures?

Torturing a child invokes an emotional subjective response to me.

Okay. So, the problem (at least, that you want to focus on right now) is with P2, not P1. Let’s explore your subjective response more. Is it the same kind of response you have to someone liking pistachio ice cream (or whatever flavor you detest)? If not, what’s the difference?

As to the history of human views on torturing an innocent child, do you think all cultures have agreed with your emotional response to such an act?

I think it's important to note that "torture" is the operative word here, and that, if the tale be told, God himself decreed a woman oughta forever feel pain when birthing em a young'n. All cause one of em had the unmitigated gall to wanna learn. Stoopid wimmins.

This is irrelevant. My arguments do not rely on the Bible being completely truthful, so even if your interpretation is correct here (I don’t think that is what the passage states), that says nothing against the arguments I shared.

My point is that where you invoke torture as an objective moral value, we see your proposed god ain't got him no problem with it.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

https://www.kingjamesbible.me/Genesis-3-16/

[Goat]

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.

That's why the need to invoke little kids when speaking of torture.

I think we are rational enough to not let our emotions cloud our logical analysis. To best do that we need to pick something that gets our emotions flowing, otherwise one may just be fooling oneself on the issue.

Which part of my reasons for P1 do you disagree with?

(1) Do you think atheistic evolutionary accounts lead to objective morality?
(2) Do you think atheistic platonic accounts have merit?

And for P2 what do you disagree with?

(1) Is torturing an innocent child in line with your common sense?
(2) Is torturing an innocent child accepted as moral within various cultures?

Torturing a child invokes an emotional subjective response to me.

Okay. So, the problem (at least, that you want to focus on right now) is with P2, not P1. Let’s explore your subjective response more. Is it the same kind of response you have to someone liking pistachio ice cream (or whatever flavor you detest)? If not, what’s the difference?

As to the history of human views on torturing an innocent child, do you think all cultures have agreed with your emotional response to such an act?

Not relevant at all.

However, since you are using this argument for the existence of the Christian god, let's look at that a bit more. Let's look at the bible, in specific, Pslam
137:9

“Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks"

Now, the psalmist definitely doesn't worry about torturing an innocent child there. Modern morals are different than that.

[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’).

Cause "reasonably" is a subjective term.

Why do you think that?

I'm under no obligation to refute your claims, or to provide support for claims I ain't made.

You're the claimant, you're the burdenee.

And I bore that burden by sharing my reasoning. To then say my reasoning fails is your claim, which is then your burden to support.

These were (2) logical absurdities seem to follow if an actually infinite number of things existed, which seem to count against its reasonableness and (3) even if an actually infinite number of things could exist, the amount of past events in our reality could not be an actual infinite (while it would need to be an actual infinite for the spatio-temporal universe to be eternal).

I fail to see where this argument supports your contention of the universe being created.

An eternal universe, by definition, would have an actually infinite past. If there can’t be an actual infinite (that’s 2 above), then the past can’t be actually infinite and, therefore, the universe couldn’t be eternal. Or even if actual infinites can exist, the past can’t be an actual infinite (that’s 3 above), therefore, the universe couldn’t be eternal.

[The Tanager]

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.

My point is that where you invoke torture as an objective moral value, we see your proposed god ain't got him no problem with it.

However, since you are using this argument for the existence of the Christian god, let's look at that a bit more. Let's look at the bible, in specific, Pslam
137:9

These are irrelevant. Assume your interpretations are correct and it does nothing against any of my claims. It would be relevant if I were arguing for the inerrancy of the Bible, but I’m not arguing for that.

Not relevant at all.

How is it irrelevant? It directly concerns P2 of the argument and your disagreement with it. Support why you think something is irrelevant, like I did above, instead of just saying it is.

[JoeyKnothead]

Cause "reasonably" is a subjective term.

Why do you think that?

Cause it is.

It's often used to imply those who disagree'runrasonable for not much more'n to be it.

I'm under no obligation to refute your claims, or to provide support for claims I ain't made.

You're the claimant, you're the burdenee.

And I bore that burden by sharing my reasoning. To then say my reasoning fails is your claim, which is then your burden to support.

I have, by presenting the fact that your P2 is devoid of any way to prove to be true.

These were (2) logical absurdities seem to follow if an actually infinite number of things existed, which seem to count against its reasonableness and (3) even if an actually infinite number of things could exist, the amount of past events in our reality could not be an actual infinite (while it would need to be an actual infinite for the spatio-temporal universe to be eternal).

I fail to see where this argument supports your contention of the universe being created.[/quote]
An eternal universe, by definition, would have an actually infinite past. If there can’t be an actual infinite (that’s 2 above), then the past can’t be actually infinite and, therefore, the universe couldn’t be eternal. Or even if actual infinites can exist, the past can’t be an actual infinite (that’s 3 above), therefore, the universe couldn’t be eternal.
[/quote]
Tell it however it pleases you, the statement, "The universe began to exist" is no better'n, "But my god has always existed."

Neither statement can be shown to be true and factual.