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
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #341

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:44 pmWhat really gets me is the arrogance it would take for me to use your other arguments only to land at a specific god concept. Even if they were good arguments (they are not), they do not get us any closer to any specific god concept and I'm not arrogant enough to just pick one and consider all other believers to be mistaken when the very same arguments can be used to support the version of a god they believe in.
As I said, it’s the argument for Jesus’ resurrection that I believe points to a specific god concept, narrowing theism to Christian theism.
Thank you for acknowledging that the arguments you put forth do not point to any specific god. Thank you for directing us to the holy book you have chosen to supply you with a specific god concept. I have no idea how one relates/points to the other though. Seems like quite a leap.

When is it that decomposing bodies began to have the ability to come back to life? Seems important since arguing for such a thing is what narrows you down to Christian theism. I have to be honest with you, I didn't know such a thing was possible. What reverses the liquifiying process that has begun on a body that has been dead for a few days? Surely more than a book claimed it as so.
Clownboat wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:44 pmThe fact of the matter is, people don't believe in the Christian god for any other reason other than the belief in a book. The irony is that the book has become the idol and the said god concept would not approve.

You shall not make for yourselves an idol comes to mind.
But how else would we know our God!
Seems we are done here...
Even if you were right that people only believe in the Christian god because of a belief in the book,
You mean, even though I'm right...
faulting a truth claim because of why one believes or how they came to that belief is the genetic fallacy.
Not so fast. First show the truth claims is true and not just claimed to be true. Are you talking about your preferred god being true or your preferred book being true or something else here?
Either way, if you think people don't believe in bodily resurrections because of a book, you are mistaken (genetic fallacy). People don't believe in them because they don't happen that we know of. Any book (besides a medical book) is irrelevant when discussing bodily resurrections. They should be ingnored, not due to a book, due to them being shown to not be a possibility and that would not be a genetic fallacy to point to this truth.
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
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 #342

Post by Goat »

The Tanager wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:07 pm 2A. 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.

Clownboat wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:44 pmIt seems you are missing a great opportunity!
What is the best explanation for the dead bodies that got out of their graves and walk Jerusalem and for why it went unnoticed?

Matthew 27:52 ►
New International Version
and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

That possible fact doesn’t have the strength of support behind it that the three I mentioned, as far as I know, but I’m open to hearing a case.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 9:01 pmOkay then, show us all how we may confirm Jesus existed.

I note the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site.

That doesn’t mean the biblical documents can’t be used as evidence for the conclusion that Jesus existed. Almost every scholar believe that the Biblical evidence, the writings of the early church fathers, Jewish rabbinical traditions, Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus’ Annals, Seutonius’ Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Pliny the Younger’s letter to the emperor Trajan, Mara bar Serapion’s writings, point to Jesus’ existence.
Goat wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 12:18 amPlease show that P1 is true. Show those are facts, and not claims.
1. The tomb was found empty by a group of women followers

First, the reliability of Jesus’ burial supports this. If the burial is accurate, then the location of Jesus’ tomb would have been known to Jew (Jesus was entombed by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin) and Christian (the women would have followed the burial party to perform their duties). If his burial site was known, then it must have been empty when the disciples began to preach Jesus’ resurrection because neither the disciples nor the possible converts would have believed the Gospel if the corpse was still there. Or, even if some believed, the Jewish authorities would have easily exposed it as a hoax by showing the body in the tomb.

Jesus’ burial in the tomb is multiply attested in early and independent sources: the pre-Markan passion story within Mark (which the German scholar Pesch dates to within 7 years of the cruxificion), the tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 15, which many scholars date to within 5 years. Later independent sources (“Q,” John, Acts) and it is unlikely that Christians would have invented Joseph of Arimathea as the one who buried Jesus.

Second, the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb is also multiply attested in early and independent sources. The pre-Markan passion source, the tradition in 1 Cor 15, Acts, Matthew, Luke, John.

Third, Mark says Jesus’ resurrection was on “the first day of the week,” If this was a late developing legend, Mark would have most likely used “on the third day” as that had become the widely prominent way to refer to it by then. The phrase itself apparently is awkward in Greek, yet naturally idiomatic if translated back into Aramaic.

Fourth, the story in Mark is simple, lacking signs of legendary development and embellishment. The author doesn’t have witnesses or a description of the resurrection, there isn’t theological reflection about Jesus’ victory over sin or death, Christological titles aren’t used of Jesus, no quotes of fulfilled prophecy, no description of the risen Jesus. It’s nothing like the Gospel of Peter’s account, for instance, where the tomb is surrounded by a Roman guard, the Pharisees, elders, chief priests, a huge crowd, a voice rings out, two men descend on the clouds, the stone rolls away by itself, the two men (whose heads reach up to the clouds) go in and three men come out, with the third man’s head surpassing the clouds, a cross follows them out of the tomb, a voice calls out again asking if one has preached to the dead and the cross answers “yes”.

Fifth, women were said to discover the tomb. Women weren’t regarded as reliable witnesses and treated as second-class citizens. Not even the tradition in 1 Cor 15 mentions women, it lists Jesus appearing to Cephas/Peter first.

Sixth, the earliest polemic we have presupposes the empty tomb. Matthew 28:11-15 is the earliest Christian attempt to refute the Jewish polemic, where it is claimed that the disciples stole the body, a story which Matthew says “has been spread among the Jews to this day.” He is addressing that claim because it is what the Jewish people are saying against the resurrection, not that the tomb wasn’t empty.

2. The post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various people

First, we have multiple and independent attestation of Jesus’ appearances through the tradition in 1 Cor 15 and all four Gospels,

Second, the appearance to James best explains James’ conversion from thinking Jesus is mad and possibly trying to get him killed (Mark 3, John 7) to being a leader in the Christian movement as well as Paul’s conversion from trying to stamp Christianity out to becoming a sold-out Christian missionary faced with poverty, suffering, and death.

3. The origin of the Christian faith

The Christian religion had spread to Europe, Africa, and Asia within a generation of the death of Jesus with the message that Jesus had risen from the dead. They pinned their movement on it, even to the point of death. As Jews, they would have had no previous conception of a Messiah who would be shamefully executed as a criminal or rise from the dead to immortality before the general resurrection at the end of the world, yet that is what they taught.
You are mixing up the claim with evidence. There is the claim in the bible that women found the empty tomb. However, that is not really showing it's true. I mean, I can not point to other stories that relay myths , or entertainment, and say that the stories are evidence that the stories are 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

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 #343

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: Tue May 10, 2022 1:42 amOf course it doesn't fail because of its name, that's only a passing faux pas, but it does fail because it breaks form, such as:

1. Introducing unproven assertions such as the need that cause be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
2. Making one's argument conditional with an "if" and expecting it to lead to an absolute conclusion, which it cannot.

1. I gave reasons to support the assertions in P4. If you want to move the discussion forward rationally there, then respond to those.

2. P3-P5 is a textbook modus ponens:

P3. A
P4. If A, then B
P5. Therefore, B

Valid. Sound if P3 (which logically follows from P1 and P2) and P4 are true, which I’ve given support for thinking.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 7:56 amThe problem with First Cause is of course, what 'caused' the god? To assert that 'it was always there' is as baseless a Faith

No, it’s not faith-based, but a conclusion of the argument. That the cause is eternal is a necessary conclusion from the Kalam. If the cause didn’t always exist, then it came to exist at some point in time. That would mean that it didn’t create time, but came afterwards, which is illogical for the cause of time’s existence to do.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 7:56 amI have argued before that postulating an intelligent creator without origin of its' own multiplies more logical entities than a hypothetical idea of an uncreated nothing that has the potential to become 'stuff': nothing that has the ability to take up a position/place relative to other bits of Nothing.

Are you saying “nothing that turns into something” is more simple than a creator that creates a separate something because that’s 1 total thing versus 2 total things? Something different?


1B. Fine-tuning

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
P3. Therefore, it is due to design
P4. Design necessitates a designer
P5. Therefore, there is a designer

brunumb wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 3:49 am
(1) I believe it’s most reasonable to think it’s not via physical necessity because (a) there is no logical reason for it being so and (b) all scientific theories point towards no physical necessity.

(2) I believe it’s most reasonable to think it’s not via chance because (a) the odds of it are too astronomical, requiring a near infinite world ensemble to exist, (b) this world ensemble type of alternative is ad hoc and (c) even if this world ensemble existed it is much more probable that our world would be different than what it is.

Beliefs and opinions are not evidence and do not validate claims.

Any claim can be prefaced by “I believe”, which is different from offering a belief/opinion as support for a claim. I’m not offering it being my belief as evidence for it being true. The support is (a), (b), and (c). Take out the “I believe” if the semantics are tripping you up.

(1) It’s most reasonable to think it’s not via physical necessity because (a) there is no logical reason for it being so and (b) all scientific theories point towards no physical necessity

(2) It’s most reasonable to think it’s not via chance because (a) the odds of it are too astronomical, requiring a near infinite world ensemble to exist, (b) this world ensemble type of alternative is ad hoc and (c) even if this world ensemble existed it is much more probable that our world would be different than what it is.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 7:56 amAs to astronomical odds against (just in order to be clear on this, whoever brought it up) this usually turns out to be a strawman, or misrepresentation or fallacy, occasioned by....(wait for it)....


....Good ol' Assuming a Creator as a given' to start with. The fallacy is caused by assuming an intended outcome. Then attaining that by chance would be indeed be massive odds against.

But if the outcome is whatever it turns out to be, then the odds are 1/1.

You need to show it is a strawman, misrepresentation, begging the question, etc. in this case. I am not assuming a creator to start with. I’m not assuming fine-tuning. Feel free to argue against the reasons I actually give in this argument.


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.

Miles wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 1:53 am
But, again, it’s about establishing the if (or it’s opposite). This is the form of the moral argument. It’s a textbook modus tollens.

If A (i.e., God does not exist), then B (i.e., objective…do not exist)
Not-B (i.e., objective…do exist)
Therefore not-A (i.e., God does exist)

Here, let me rephrase your argument in other terms. Perhaps this will help.
P1. If flying unicorns do not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, flying unicorns exist.

Think flying unicorns exist because of the fallacious argument above? You have my sympathies if you do.

The critique I was responding to involved the form of the argument. An argument that has an If-then premise absolutely can be a valid argument. Of course an argument needs to be have true premises to be a sound argument, but that wasn’t the critique I was responding to.

In the very next paragraph I then proceeded to give support for believing my P1 was true. That support is why I think the argument I gave gives us truth. You have offered no support for your P1.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:50 pmI see no need to move a goalpost I just placed in the ground.

You asked me to share an objective moral value. I could share 10 different ones (and more), if I wanted, in support of my claim. But I started with one. You changed it (so if anyone is moving the goalpost, it would be you). I updated the example to more closely mirror the situation you were talking about. That’s not moving the goal post.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:50 pmThe fact that folks torture others is clear evidence they ain't got em no moral qualms about the doing it.

I didn’t say everyone followed the same morality. Morality isn’t about what people do, but about whether people ought to do something. Do you believe Person A ought to be able to torture Person B, when Person B will not harm any of Person A’s loved ones, simply because Person B holds a different worldview?


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: Mon May 09, 2022 10:36 pmHaving previously misunderstood ya, please forgive me if I'm still off track...

All is see is a rather coincidental "mathematics", where nigh on anything could be considered in such terms.

There's really nothing freakishly special about noticing two of something, and another'n of em has ya with three of em.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your critique as well. Why should complex mathematical equations map onto reality? I’m not saying we found out 2+2=4 and then discovered our fingers. Mathematical equations have led to scientific discoveries of particles that exist. That shows the mathematical structure built into reality rather than us reading math where it doesn’t exist as part of the intrinsic structure.


1E. Consciousness

P1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.
P2. Intentional states of consciousness do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 7:56 amI see 'Consciousness' as having developed from instinct, pack mentality and problem - solving; all evolutionary, not mystery.

Do you have rational support for seeing things that way?


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.

JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:55 pm
I note the bible ain't considered authoritative in this section of the site.

That doesn’t mean the biblical documents can’t be used as evidence for the conclusion that Jesus existed.

Nor does it mean they put any truth to their own claims.

I agree.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:55 pmPointing to, and showing to be truth, they ain't the same thing.

The problem here is Jesus is claimed to be a human-god hybrid, and none can show such hybrids produce viable offspring.

If all of these documents, Christian, Jewish, and Roman, posit the existence of a man named Jesus, from their varied biases, then it is more than reasonable that Jesus actually existed. There is multiple and early attestation from numerous camps. Almost no scholarly historian doubts Jesus’ existence and those very few that do are simply not taken that seriously for the reasons above.

Whether Jesus is a human-god hybrid is a later question. Jesus could have existed and not been a human-god hybrid, so that feature is irrelevant when answering the question of whether Jesus existed or not.

Premises 3 and 4 is where one would gain reasons to believe Jesus to be a “god-human hybrid”.
Clownboat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 11:38 amThank you for acknowledging that the arguments you put forth do not point to any specific god. Thank you for directing us to the holy book you have chosen to supply you with a specific god concept. I have no idea how one relates/points to the other though. Seems like quite a leap.

Nowhere did I provide “the holy book” as a reason to believe a specific god concept. In section 1 we get a “God” who is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, personal, the creator of the universe, and concerned about morality. In section 2, we see “God” validating Jesus’ teachings through the resurrection.
Clownboat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 11:38 amWhen is it that decomposing bodies began to have the ability to come back to life? Seems important since arguing for such a thing is what narrows you down to Christian theism. I have to be honest with you, I didn't know such a thing was possible. What reverses the liquifiying process that has begun on a body that has been dead for a few days? Surely more than a book claimed it as so.

The argument is not that bodies naturally changed to where they can now resurrect. The claim is that this was an intervention in the usual physical process, a miracle. And I gave the start of my reasoning in support, so feel free to critique it.
Clownboat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 11:38 am
Even if you were right that people only believe in the Christian god because of a belief in the book,

You mean, even though I'm right...

No, I certainly don’t mean that. If you have a rational case for your claim, set it out for us.
Clownboat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 11:38 amEither way, if you think people don't believe in bodily resurrections because of a book, you are mistaken (genetic fallacy).

I did not say that. You said the only reason people believe in the Christian god is because they believe the book. I agree some believe for that reason, but not all do.
Clownboat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 11:38 amThey should be ingnored, not due to a book, due to them being shown to not be a possibility and that would not be a genetic fallacy to point to this truth.

Give the argument that shows a supernatural resurrection is not a possibility.
Goat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 12:48 pmYou are mixing up the claim with evidence. There is the claim in the bible that women found the empty tomb. However, that is not really showing it's true. I mean, I can not point to other stories that relay myths , or entertainment, and say that the stories are evidence that the stories are true.

That was one piece of evidence in a cumulative case. If the story was made up, then they wouldn’t have used women as the primary eyewitnesses.

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 #344

Post by Goat »

Goat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 12:48 pmYou are mixing up the claim with evidence. There is the claim in the bible that women found the empty tomb. However, that is not really showing it's true. I mean, I can not point to other stories that relay myths , or entertainment, and say that the stories are evidence that the stories are true.

That was one piece of evidence in a cumulative case. If the story was made up, then they wouldn’t have used women as the primary eyewitnesses.
[/quote]

I disagree. You are using a group of books that are being used to propagate a religious belief, and therefore is evidence for that belief, but not for that belief being true.

In each and every solitary one of those philosophical examples, you start with a premise that can not be shown to be true, and end with a conclusion that can not be shown to be true. You can not show that any one of those arguments are sound.

As for the 'one piece of cumulative evidence', the statement 'if the story was made up, then they wouldn't have used women as the primary eyewitness' does not seem to be 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

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7970
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #345

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Arguing Cosmic Origins is not on the topic of prayer, but I'm willing to answer.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 12:56 pm
The problem with First Cause is of course, what 'caused' the god? To assert that 'it was always there' is as baseless a Faith

Tanager. No, it’s not faith-based, but a conclusion of the argument. That the cause is eternal is a necessary conclusion from the Kalam. If the cause didn’t always exist, then it came to exist at some point in time. That would mean that it didn’t create time, but came afterwards, which is illogical for the cause of time’s existence to do.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing the Kalam argument but an intelligent creator. Which Lane Craig was surely arguing with Kalam even though Kalam isn't necessarily an argument for an intelligent creator. For example, if I argued that Nothing didn't need to be created, that would be eternal, in effect. Then if (as a more reasonable alternative to an uncreated complexity) nothing produced 'stuff' (nothing behaving like Something, which I might argue matter is, essentially) then 'time' (events to mark changes) came afterwards. Thus your requirements are fulfilled with less logical entities to explain than an Intelligent Creator, which is the point I am arguing is less logical. Succinctly, No god fulfils the kalam requirements more logically than 'god' - an intelligent creator.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 12:56 pm
I have argued before that postulating an intelligent creator without origin of its' own multiplies more logical entities than a hypothetical idea of an uncreated nothing that has the potential to become 'stuff': nothing that has the ability to take up a position/place relative to other bits of Nothing.

Tanager. Are you saying “nothing that turns into something” is more simple than a creator that creates a separate something because that’s 1 total thing versus 2 total things? Something different?
I 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.

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 #346

Post by Miles »

The Tanager wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 7:58 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’).

Miles wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 1:42 amOf course it doesn't fail because of its name, that's only a passing faux pas, but it does fail because it breaks form, such as:

1. Introducing unproven assertions such as the need that cause be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
2. Making one's argument conditional with an "if" and expecting it to lead to an absolute conclusion, which it cannot.

1. I gave reasons to support the assertions in P4. If you want to move the discussion forward rationally there, then respond to those.
I'm sorry, but looking over your past posts I find no justification for P4 at all. Although, perhaps I missed it, and if I did I'd be happy to look at it.

2. P3-P5 is a textbook modus ponens:

P3. A
P4. If A, then B
P5. Therefore, B
If 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.


.

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 #347

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 7:58 pm You asked me to share an objective moral value. I could share 10 different ones (and more), if I wanted, in support of my claim.
You presented torture as an 'objective' moral value, and I showed the errancy of that thinking.

I consider it perfectly moral to torture anyone who'd harm one of mine. You may disagree, but that shows morality is purely and irrevocably subjective.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:50 pmThe fact that folks torture others is clear evidence they ain't got em no moral qualms about the doing it.

I didn’t say everyone followed the same morality. Morality isn’t about what people do, but about whether people ought to do something.
[/quote]
And who decides who needs to do em the oughting?
Do you believe Person A ought to be able to torture Person B, when Person B will not harm any of Person A’s loved ones, simply because Person B holds a different worldview?
Insufficient data.

You're trying to use a generality to define something specific.

You'll never, ever show that morality is anything other'n subjective opinion.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 10:36 pmHaving previously misunderstood ya, please forgive me if I'm still off track...

All is see is a rather coincidental "mathematics", where nigh on anything could be considered in such terms.

There's really nothing freakishly special about noticing two of something, and another'n of em has ya with three of em.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your critique as well. Why should complex mathematical equations map onto reality? I’m not saying we found out 2+2=4 and then discovered our fingers. Mathematical equations have led to scientific discoveries of particles that exist. That shows the mathematical structure built into reality rather than us reading math where it doesn’t exist as part of the intrinsic structure.
[/quote]
It 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.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7970
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 933 times
Been thanked: 3488 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #348

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Goat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 8:40 pm
Goat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 12:48 pmYou are mixing up the claim with evidence. There is the claim in the bible that women found the empty tomb. However, that is not really showing it's true. I mean, I can not point to other stories that relay myths , or entertainment, and say that the stories are evidence that the stories are true.
That was one piece of evidence in a cumulative case. If the story was made up, then they wouldn’t have used women as the primary eyewitnesses.
I disagree. You are using a group of books that are being used to propagate a religious belief, and therefore is evidence for that belief, but not for that belief being true.

In each and every solitary one of those philosophical examples, you start with a premise that can not be shown to be true, and end with a conclusion that can not be shown to be true. You can not show that any one of those arguments are sound.

As for the 'one piece of cumulative evidence', the statement 'if the story was made up, then they wouldn't have used women as the primary eyewitness' does not seem to be true.

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.

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 #349

Post by Goat »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:05 pm Arguing Cosmic Origins is not on the topic of prayer, but I'm willing to answer.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 12:56 pm
The problem with First Cause is of course, what 'caused' the god? To assert that 'it was always there' is as baseless a Faith

Tanager. No, it’s not faith-based, but a conclusion of the argument. That the cause is eternal is a necessary conclusion from the Kalam. If the cause didn’t always exist, then it came to exist at some point in time. That would mean that it didn’t create time, but came afterwards, which is illogical for the cause of time’s existence to do.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing the Kalam argument but an intelligent creator. Which Lane Craig was surely arguing with Kalam even though Kalam isn't necessarily an argument for an intelligent creator. For example, if I argued that Nothing didn't need to be created, that would be eternal, in effect. Then if (as a more reasonable alternative to an uncreated complexity) nothing produced 'stuff' (nothing behaving like Something, which I might argue matter is, essentially) then 'time' (events to mark changes) came afterwards. Thus your requirements are fulfilled with less logical entities to explain than an Intelligent Creator, which is the point I am arguing is less logical. Succinctly, No god fulfils the kalam requirements more logically than 'god' - an intelligent creator.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 12:56 pm
I have argued before that postulating an intelligent creator without origin of its' own multiplies more logical entities than a hypothetical idea of an uncreated nothing that has the potential to become 'stuff': nothing that has the ability to take up a position/place relative to other bits of Nothing.

Tanager. Are you saying “nothing that turns into something” is more simple than a creator that creates a separate something because that’s 1 total thing versus 2 total things? Something different?
I 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.
It does not matter if it's an intelligent creator or god, you not show that your premise is true, nor any step along the way is 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

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #350

Post by brunumb »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:24 pm 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.
Just as newspapers may be considered as evidence for the events they describe, that does not mean that what they describe is the truth.
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.

Post Reply