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: 4979
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 #381

Post by 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.

Diogenes wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:54 pmNo, these are not 'facts,' not any more than other reports in many cultures and religions other than Abrahamic ones. For example Plutarch writes:

These are not equivalent. Not because one is Christian and the others non-Christian, but because of the support. I gave a summary support for the above three earlier. Feel free to critique that support or give your support for believing Aristeas’ death, vanishing, and returning.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:49 amI have an argument that the details in the Gospels (if one accepted them as reliable report) makes the 'swoon' theory plus 'the disciples stole the body' the best explanation. This does require that the disciples' belief in the resurrection is of a spirit or perhaps a new perfect body going to heaven, not of them having seen Jesus on the Sunday evening. There is peripheral evidence of this - The order of appearances in I Cor.15.5 do not fit the resurrection account, and Paul equates his own vision (which is surely not on the Sunday night) with the visions of the disciples.

I think we already explored your theory on another thread and I shared why I disagreed with your conclusion, but I’m always willing to explore it again. That the disciples’ belief was in a spiritual resurrection is very weak. Paul doesn’t teach it. Paul saying “he also appeared to me” does not equate his vision with the disciples’ experience of the resurrected Jesus. Jesus had already ascended before Paul’s experience, so there is every reason to think it would be different, yet still an experience to the point that Paul can say Jesus appeared to him.

There is no reason the list in 1 Cor 15 should have to match the resurrection accounts. That doesn’t mean they contradict. They serve different purposes. The gospel accounts are handed down oral traditions, while this is a formalized creed probably used within a wider society that would not accept the testimony of women, thus they don’t have that appearance first.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #382

Post by TRANSPONDER »

It is weak. My suggestion comes out of a conclusion (which I think is strong) that the resurrection accounts are fabricated

They contradict
Mark shows that there was originally no resurrection account.

if so, what are those resurrection references in Paul? Comparison shows that they differ, so that is why I suggest that whatever they are, they are not support for the Gospel resurrection accounts.

Add to that that Paul equated his own belated vision of Jesus with those, and it suggests that the appearances in Corinthians may also be visionary, especially the appearance to 500 at once.

I accept that it is not hard evidence to persuade a believer (what is?) but it is at least a supported alternative explanation that means that I certainly do not have to accept the Gospel resurrection accounts as backed up by I Corinthians as persuasive evidence that the Resurrection was real.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #383

Post by Goat »

The Tanager wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:26 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.

Goat wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:36 pm1) How do you know that objective morals and duties would not exist without god? Can you show that this is a true statemetn.

First, what do you mean by “show that this is a true statement”? Again, if you mean prove 100%, then I have admitted that I can’t show 100%. But that’s not a problem because pure mathematics and definitions are possibly the only things that can be shown 100%. Now, if you mean the most reasonable position to hold (as I do), then I would posit that all of the atheistic accounts of morality either (1) don’t posit objective morality or (2) have no good support for being true.

Now, obviously, I can’t list every single person’s versions of atheistically accounting for objective morality and then critique all of them in any efficienct way, but I’m open to discussing any of them to see if I have correctly characterized things below.

An atheistic account of evolution leads to subjective morality where, say, our moral senses could have been different if different evolutionary branches would have been taken. Some people have claimed that evolution can give us objective morality, but I’ve never been convinced of that.

While something like Erik Wielenberg’s “godless normative realism.” where moral values are objective abstract objects, fail, in my view because there is no good way to account for why “goodness” attaches itself to certain events (such as choosing to not torture someone for the sole reason of them having a different worldview) and, even if one could get around that, there is no reason why we should care that “goodness” attaches itself to such an event.
Goat wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:36 pm2) How do you know objective moral values and duties exist. Define what you mean by 'objective morals' and 'objective dutities' ,and then show they exist.

I think most people accept this premise as true, even if they don’t think they do at first. If you don’t think morality is objective, then torturing someone because they have a different worldview and not torturing them are simply different tastes akin to how some people like chocolate and others like vanilla.

But let’s say that one believes the above kind of torture is not wrong. I would say this goes against our common sense (how can nothing be wrong with such torture?), but more importantly looking across human history and culture, we see there are moral principles that run through all of them. If morality was truly subjective, then we wouldn’t expect this to be the case.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:07 amThe problem was always that morality was unaccountable unless there was a big invisible lawgiver. Science had no answer because ethics and morality is in that area of human experience where science has no purview. But just a decade or so ago, while your attention was elsewhere, it was realised that science CAN explain morals and ethics and a set of rules imposed by an invisible dictator can't.

Paul put it quite nicely - 'written on our hearts'. Innate instinct, not imposed Laws. Once we understand that the objective basis of human well being evolved through pack identity, family group and tribal empathy, made more complex by social evolution and the need for Law codes, and like Life and consciousness, biological and social evolution explains it better than a god says so.

It seems more likely to me that evolution would lead to competing moral principles evolving, but this doesn’t occur. One may think morals are very different, but they really aren’t. People define things differently and then seem to apply the same moral principles to those different definitions to lead to some of what people may think are “different” morals.

Yet, even if evolution could result in this universal human moral sense, all that would do is tell us what humans do rather than what humans should do.
I would settle for 'any evidence beyond just making a declaration'. How can that statement be tested to see if it's true?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #384

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Tanager wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:26 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.

Goat wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:36 pm1) How do you know that objective morals and duties would not exist without god? Can you show that this is a true statemetn.

First, what do you mean by “show that this is a true statement”? Again, if you mean prove 100%, then I have admitted that I can’t show 100%. But that’s not a problem because pure mathematics and definitions are possibly the only things that can be shown 100%. Now, if you mean the most reasonable position to hold (as I do), then I would posit that all of the atheistic accounts of morality either (1) don’t posit objective morality or (2) have no good support for being true.

Now, obviously, I can’t list every single person’s versions of atheistically accounting for objective morality and then critique all of them in any efficienct way, but I’m open to discussing any of them to see if I have correctly characterized things below.

An atheistic account of evolution leads to subjective morality where, say, our moral senses could have been different if different evolutionary branches would have been taken. Some people have claimed that evolution can give us objective morality, but I’ve never been convinced of that.

While something like Erik Wielenberg’s “godless normative realism.” where moral values are objective abstract objects, fail, in my view because there is no good way to account for why “goodness” attaches itself to certain events (such as choosing to not torture someone for the sole reason of them having a different worldview) and, even if one could get around that, there is no reason why we should care that “goodness” attaches itself to such an event.
Goat wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:36 pm2) How do you know objective moral values and duties exist. Define what you mean by 'objective morals' and 'objective dutities' ,and then show they exist.

I think most people accept this premise as true, even if they don’t think they do at first. If you don’t think morality is objective, then torturing someone because they have a different worldview and not torturing them are simply different tastes akin to how some people like chocolate and others like vanilla.

But let’s say that one believes the above kind of torture is not wrong. I would say this goes against our common sense (how can nothing be wrong with such torture?), but more importantly looking across human history and culture, we see there are moral principles that run through all of them. If morality was truly subjective, then we wouldn’t expect this to be the case.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:07 amThe problem was always that morality was unaccountable unless there was a big invisible lawgiver. Science had no answer because ethics and morality is in that area of human experience where science has no purview. But just a decade or so ago, while your attention was elsewhere, it was realised that science CAN explain morals and ethics and a set of rules imposed by an invisible dictator can't.

Paul put it quite nicely - 'written on our hearts'. Innate instinct, not imposed Laws. Once we understand that the objective basis of human well being evolved through pack identity, family group and tribal empathy, made more complex by social evolution and the need for Law codes, and like Life and consciousness, biological and social evolution explains it better than a god says so.

It seems more likely to me that evolution would lead to competing moral principles evolving, but this doesn’t occur. One may think morals are very different, but they really aren’t. People define things differently and then seem to apply the same moral principles to those different definitions to lead to some of what people may think are “different” morals.

Yet, even if evolution could result in this universal human moral sense, all that would do is tell us what humans do rather than what humans should do.
Of course :) you are falling into the trap of thinking that there is moral objectivity (handed down by God, presumably). But my argument is that it is only what humans do and couldn't be anything else. I use art, literature and dance as an analogy. Although they differ, region to region and culture to culture, they have remarkably similar basics. Evolution has survival at the goal and I don't need to tell you how pack animals co - operate and have social rules because that helps survival as a species and also increases the chances of individuals.

Humans have more complex reasoning and more complex societies and more complex ethical codes, but basically our instincts and survival -methods are the same as any other pack -animal.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #385

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: Wed May 18, 2022 1:38 pmThey're only 'logical conclusions' of the anthropomorphology department of a fourth rate christian high school.

That’s empty rhetoric. Show how the argument is such.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 1:38 pmWe know the universe exists.

To purport to know how come it does is hubrisity.

I’m simply answering the question of whether the spatio-temporal universe could have always existed or came into existence. It’s not hubris to follow the logic here.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:30 pmYou've failed to show the universe hasn't always existed, as you propose your cause ain't bound by the same constraint.

A hypothetical - here it's 'if' - does not establish fact.

...

The 'discussion' is dead in the water, as you refuse to realize the universe may have already existed, so would need no more 'cause' than does this cause of yours need it one.

If we were all sheep, we'd call your proposition special bleating.

Then you seem to not understand the flow of the argument. P2 is the statement that the universe hasn’t always existed. I shared why I believe that is a true premise. You aren’t critiquing those reasons here, so I have nothing to add in defense. P4 is a conditional statement, but P3 (which follows logically from P1 and P2) establishes the “if” as being true. Thus (if P1 and P2 are true), it is no longer a hypothetical. P5 follows logically from P3 and P4. Thus, we reach the conclusion of a personal (among other things) cause. This is not, in any way, special pleading, it's reasoning to a conclusion.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #386

Post by 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.

Goat wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 5:22 pmI would settle for 'any evidence beyond just making a declaration'. How can that statement be tested to see if it's true?

Where did I do that? In what you quoted before saying this, I gave some of the reasoning that made it more than just a declaration.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 6:43 pmOf course you are falling into the trap of thinking that there is moral objectivity (handed down by God, presumably). But my argument is that it is only what humans do and couldn't be anything else.

Do you view those who torture people for the sole reason of having a different worldview the same as you treat someone who doesn’t like the same flavor of ice cream (or whatever you like) as you do? If not, why not?

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4979
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 #387

Post by 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.

TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:50 pmMy suggestion comes out of a conclusion (which I think is strong) that the resurrection accounts are fabricated

They contradict

I think the contradictions mostly involve misunderstanding the genre for a modern historical way to do things.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:50 pmMark shows that there was originally no resurrection account.

No, it doesn’t. It just means Mark didn’t feel a need to share an extended resurrection account. It’s clear the author believes the resurrection happened.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:50 pmif so, what are those resurrection references in Paul? Comparison shows that they differ, so that is why I suggest that whatever they are, they are not support for the Gospel resurrection accounts.

They each have unique elements, yes, but that doesn’t mean they contradict.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:50 pmAdd to that that Paul equated his own belated vision of Jesus with those, and it suggests that the appearances in Corinthians may also be visionary, especially the appearance to 500 at once.

No, it doesn’t suggest that. Why not that Paul’s experience came after Jesus’ ascension and therefore, would be of a different kind, yet still be able to be equated to seeing Jesus, who remains in existence?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri May 27, 2022 12:50 pmI accept that it is not hard evidence to persuade a believer (what is?) but it is at least a supported alternative explanation that means that I certainly do not have to accept the Gospel resurrection accounts as backed up by I Corinthians as persuasive evidence that the Resurrection was real.

Come on. There are gullible Christians as well as atheists and those in every single worldview that will accept anything that tells them what they want to hear and there are thoughtful people in those worldviews, as well.

No belief, outside of pure math and definitions, is certain enough to force us to accept it. We all make up our own minds. I hope that we do so with as much thought as we can and we are charitable to those who come to different conclusions.

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 #388

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 9:46 am 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: Wed May 18, 2022 1:38 pm They're only 'logical conclusions' of the anthropomorphology department of a fourth rate christian high school.
That’s empty rhetoric. Show how the argument is such.
Show the universe was caused into existence. Best we can tell, there sits the universe. To propose it was caused by a cause you can't show occured is errant, logically speaking.

So, if there's that cause there, of the universe being created, we can reasonably and logically ask, "What caused that cause". Theists, that's what caused it.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 1:38 pm We know the universe exists.
To purport to know how come it does is hubrisity.
I’m simply answering the question of whether the spatio-temporal universe could have always existed or came into existence. It’s not hubris to follow the logic here.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:30 pmYou've failed to show the universe hasn't always existed, as you propose your cause ain't bound by the same constraint.
A hypothetical - here it's 'if' - does not establish fact.
...
The 'discussion' is dead in the water, as you refuse to realize the universe may have already existed, so would need no more 'cause' than does this cause of yours need it one.
If we were all sheep, we'd call your proposition special bleating.
Then you seem to not understand the flow of the argument. P2 is the statement that the universe hasn’t always existed. I shared why I believe that is a true premise. You aren’t critiquing those reasons here, so I have nothing to add in defense. P4 is a conditional statement, but P3 (which follows logically from P1 and P2) establishes the “if” as being true. Thus (if P1 and P2 are true), it is no longer a hypothetical. P5 follows logically from P3 and P4. Thus, we reach the conclusion of a personal (among other things) cause. This is not, in any way, special pleading, it's reasoning to a conclusion.
And you don't understand that simply presenting an argument is not to establish fact.

"I, JoeyKnothead, declare the universe had it a cause, and it was the pretty thing that did it."

See how there, can't none of y'all say it wasn't her that did it, pretty as she is.

Your argument's nothing more'n an unprovable claim. It declares something must have a cause - that can't be shown to have it a cause - and then that argument goes on to declare it was a thinking, sentient entity (god) that caused it.

"My cause don't need it no stinking cause, but the universe needs it one, in order I can inject me a god I can't show exists into the argument" is the kinda goofy argumentation I'd expect from someone new to these debates. Kalam's a bust, so you add in all that other wordery in an attempt (however noble) to get around the fact that your argument can't put truth to its own claims.

As I said, if we were all sheep, we'd call your argument special bleating.
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

False Assumptions 101

Post #389

Post by Diogenes »

"P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause." False. Things can be in existence without a cause. This claim is made for 'God.'
"P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist. False. It may have always existed. This claim is made for 'God.'
P3. Therefore, "the spatio-temporal universe has a cause" does not follow.
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

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 #390

Post by Diogenes »

The Tanager wrote: Sun May 29, 2022 9:47 am

Come on. There are gullible Christians as well as atheists and those in every single worldview that will accept anything that tells them what they want to hear and there are thoughtful people in those worldviews, as well.
"There are gullible Christians as well as atheists...." This much is true, but when you gratuitously add, "in every single worldview" you go too far. Naturalists/scientists are not gullible about the supernatural. They do not accept fables, myths, and religious claims that defy the laws of nature.

They are not so 'gullible' they accept as 'fact' the "discovery of an empty tomb" or "post-mortem appearances" of Jesus or anyone else. Even the New Testament gives contradictory information on these claims, as well as the claim that Jesus declared himself God. These NT problems are well documented in Thomas Sheehan's The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity, available for free at
https://infidels.org/library/modern/tho ... rstcoming/
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

Post Reply