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?

Online
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 #351

Post by TRANSPONDER »

brunumb wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 1:23 am
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.
:D Public misinformation has been the name of the game since the battle of Kadesh and the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, to the present day. It helps if there is an alternative source to compare.
Goat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:45 pm
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.
It does matter because an equally valid alternative hypothesis (or claim, at least) to an intelligent creator (god) means that there is no logical reason to posit a god as probable, never mind firm belief in it. Atheism doesn't have to prove it is true because unless an Intelligent creator is the default hypothesis, it has no claim to validity.

Less logical entities to be addressed (a god is more complex than a nothing becoming something) makes it a less logically probable hypothesis than something form nothing. Kalam (though a fair argument as a pure argument) fails, should one try to make it support an intelligent creator let alone the god of any particular religion.

To be quite clear; nobody knows whether there is an Intelligent creator (god) or not and the default is NOT a god (never mind any particular god) until atheism disproves a god or can prove Something from Nothing. All atheism has to do is posit a logically equally valid alternative to a Creator (or logically better) and the God -claim is sunk. With no good reason to posit (let alone believe) in an intelligent creator (name your own religion) not knowing how it all started (agnosticism) logically mandates non belief until we have a compelling argument (which Kalam is not) and that's all that is needed to make atheism the logical default theory on cosmic origins.

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 #352

Post by Goat »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:55 am
brunumb wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 1:23 am
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.
:D Public misinformation has been the name of the game since the battle of Kadesh and the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, to the present day. It helps if there is an alternative source to compare.
Goat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:45 pm
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.
It does matter because an equally valid alternative hypothesis (or claim, at least) to an intelligent creator (god) means that there is no logical reason to posit a god as probable, never mind firm belief in it. Atheism doesn't have to prove it is true because unless an Intelligent creator is the default hypothesis, it has no claim to validity.

Less logical entities to be addressed (a god is more complex than a nothing becoming something) makes it a less logically probable hypothesis than something form nothing. Kalam (though a fair argument as a pure argument) fails, should one try to make it support an intelligent creator let alone the god of any particular religion.

To be quite clear; nobody knows whether there is an Intelligent creator (god) or not and the default is NOT a god (never mind any particular god) until atheism disproves a god or can prove Something from Nothing. All atheism has to do is posit a logically equally valid alternative to a Creator (or logically better) and the God -claim is sunk. With no good reason to posit (let alone believe) in an intelligent creator (name your own religion) not knowing how it all started (agnosticism) logically mandates non belief until we have a compelling argument (which Kalam is not) and that's all that is needed to make atheism the logical default theory on cosmic origins.
Not quite. All it has to do is point out the the postulation of an 'intelligent creator' has no model for it to be true, and is basically a template for 'I don't know'

You don't have to have an alternate when the proposed answer does not answer anything.
“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
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #353

Post by Clownboat »

The Tanager wrote:Nowhere did I provide “the holy book” as a reason to believe a specific god concept.

"As I said, it’s the argument for Jesus’ resurrection that I believe points to a specific god concept" <--- This is what you did say and what I addressed.
Now please tell me, where do the arguments for the resurrection stem from if not from the Bible? The Book is your reason. It is your idol as there is no other source for the diety you have chosen to believe in. If I'm wrong, please evidence the source for your god that is not the Bible. You should probably evidence the resurrection from another source as well while you are at it. Unless I'm correct of course and the source is the Bible as I claim.
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.
And all this comes from the holy book that is your reason for belief even though you claim it isn't. Until you provide us with another source, we will deduce that your info about your god comes from the Bible.
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.
Where can I access these claims? I kid, as I know they come from the Bible.
What again reverses the organ liquification for a body that has been dead for a few days? Are claims from a book enough to justify such, or only if I treat the book as an idol?
No, I certainly don’t mean that. If you have a rational case for your claim, set it out for us.
I claim that no human would know about the Christian god if not for the Bible. If you think I'm wrong, please provide the other source that informs us about your god concept that is not the Bible. How much info do we have, outside the Bible?
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.
Please inform us of how a person would believe in the Chrisitan god, but not because they believe the Bible. I'll grant you that many children believe because their parents believe in that book, but children often believe most everything their parents claim. So other than children that are gullible, how do we come to believe in your god concept without first believing in the book we call the Bible?
Give the argument that shows a supernatural resurrection is not a possibility.
Sneaky sneaky. This would be like me asking you to prove that unicorns don't fart fairy dust.
I need to show resurrections are not possible as much as you need to point out that unicorns have never been shown to exist outside of human imagination (where all the other god conepts come from, not yours of course, that one is real... because the Bible).

First show supernatural is possible, THEN we can talk about falsification.
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

Online
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 #354

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Goat wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:05 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:55 am
brunumb wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 1:23 am
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.
:D Public misinformation has been the name of the game since the battle of Kadesh and the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, to the present day. It helps if there is an alternative source to compare.
Goat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:45 pm
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.
It does matter because an equally valid alternative hypothesis (or claim, at least) to an intelligent creator (god) means that there is no logical reason to posit a god as probable, never mind firm belief in it. Atheism doesn't have to prove it is true because unless an Intelligent creator is the default hypothesis, it has no claim to validity.

Less logical entities to be addressed (a god is more complex than a nothing becoming something) makes it a less logically probable hypothesis than something form nothing. Kalam (though a fair argument as a pure argument) fails, should one try to make it support an intelligent creator let alone the god of any particular religion.

To be quite clear; nobody knows whether there is an Intelligent creator (god) or not and the default is NOT a god (never mind any particular god) until atheism disproves a god or can prove Something from Nothing. All atheism has to do is posit a logically equally valid alternative to a Creator (or logically better) and the God -claim is sunk. With no good reason to posit (let alone believe) in an intelligent creator (name your own religion) not knowing how it all started (agnosticism) logically mandates non belief until we have a compelling argument (which Kalam is not) and that's all that is needed to make atheism the logical default theory on cosmic origins.
Not quite. All it has to do is point out the the postulation of an 'intelligent creator' has no model for it to be true, and is basically a template for 'I don't know'

You don't have to have an alternate when the proposed answer does not answer anything.
Well, yes...I think. Obviously humans making things is the 'template' for a creator and making it huge and invisible is just putting 'God' out of sight. 'Nobody knows' is indeed the correct answer and the failure to come up with an alternative hypothesis of cosmic origins does not automatically make 'God' (name your own) the default - though Theists seem to think that it does.

All I'm arguing is that the Theist attempt to make the intelligent creator hypothesis more logically sound can be countered by my contention that something from nothing is - logically - more in accordance with the principle of parsimony.

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 #355

Post by Goat »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 3:38 am
Goat wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:05 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:55 am
brunumb wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 1:23 am
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.
:D Public misinformation has been the name of the game since the battle of Kadesh and the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, to the present day. It helps if there is an alternative source to compare.
Goat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:45 pm
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.
It does matter because an equally valid alternative hypothesis (or claim, at least) to an intelligent creator (god) means that there is no logical reason to posit a god as probable, never mind firm belief in it. Atheism doesn't have to prove it is true because unless an Intelligent creator is the default hypothesis, it has no claim to validity.

Less logical entities to be addressed (a god is more complex than a nothing becoming something) makes it a less logically probable hypothesis than something form nothing. Kalam (though a fair argument as a pure argument) fails, should one try to make it support an intelligent creator let alone the god of any particular religion.

To be quite clear; nobody knows whether there is an Intelligent creator (god) or not and the default is NOT a god (never mind any particular god) until atheism disproves a god or can prove Something from Nothing. All atheism has to do is posit a logically equally valid alternative to a Creator (or logically better) and the God -claim is sunk. With no good reason to posit (let alone believe) in an intelligent creator (name your own religion) not knowing how it all started (agnosticism) logically mandates non belief until we have a compelling argument (which Kalam is not) and that's all that is needed to make atheism the logical default theory on cosmic origins.
Not quite. All it has to do is point out the the postulation of an 'intelligent creator' has no model for it to be true, and is basically a template for 'I don't know'

You don't have to have an alternate when the proposed answer does not answer anything.
Well, yes...I think. Obviously humans making things is the 'template' for a creator and making it huge and invisible is just putting 'God' out of sight. 'Nobody knows' is indeed the correct answer and the failure to come up with an alternative hypothesis of cosmic origins does not automatically make 'God' (name your own) the default - though Theists seem to think that it does.

All I'm arguing is that the Theist attempt to make the intelligent creator hypothesis more logically sound can be countered by my contention that something from nothing is - logically - more in accordance with the principle of parsimony.
No, I don't think it is more logically sound, because, then you get the question, 'where did the intelligent creator come from'. Turtles, all the way down.
“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: 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 #356

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Goat wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 8:08 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 3:38 am
Goat wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:05 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 6:55 am
brunumb wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 1:23 am
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.
:D Public misinformation has been the name of the game since the battle of Kadesh and the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, to the present day. It helps if there is an alternative source to compare.
Goat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:45 pm
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.
It does matter because an equally valid alternative hypothesis (or claim, at least) to an intelligent creator (god) means that there is no logical reason to posit a god as probable, never mind firm belief in it. Atheism doesn't have to prove it is true because unless an Intelligent creator is the default hypothesis, it has no claim to validity.

Less logical entities to be addressed (a god is more complex than a nothing becoming something) makes it a less logically probable hypothesis than something form nothing. Kalam (though a fair argument as a pure argument) fails, should one try to make it support an intelligent creator let alone the god of any particular religion.

To be quite clear; nobody knows whether there is an Intelligent creator (god) or not and the default is NOT a god (never mind any particular god) until atheism disproves a god or can prove Something from Nothing. All atheism has to do is posit a logically equally valid alternative to a Creator (or logically better) and the God -claim is sunk. With no good reason to posit (let alone believe) in an intelligent creator (name your own religion) not knowing how it all started (agnosticism) logically mandates non belief until we have a compelling argument (which Kalam is not) and that's all that is needed to make atheism the logical default theory on cosmic origins.
Not quite. All it has to do is point out the the postulation of an 'intelligent creator' has no model for it to be true, and is basically a template for 'I don't know'

You don't have to have an alternate when the proposed answer does not answer anything.
Well, yes...I think. Obviously humans making things is the 'template' for a creator and making it huge and invisible is just putting 'God' out of sight. 'Nobody knows' is indeed the correct answer and the failure to come up with an alternative hypothesis of cosmic origins does not automatically make 'God' (name your own) the default - though Theists seem to think that it does.

All I'm arguing is that the Theist attempt to make the intelligent creator hypothesis more logically sound can be countered by my contention that something from nothing is - logically - more in accordance with the principle of parsimony.
No, I don't think it is more logically sound, because, then you get the question, 'where did the intelligent creator come from'. Turtles, all the way down.
Yes. That was my point. Something from nothing (with a half explanation at least) posits one (at least) less logical entity than an intelligent creator, since - as you say - the origins of that creator are not explained any more than the origins of matter, Plus the intelligence and creative abilities have to be explained, and 'they were always there' is doubly counter intuitive, though not of course counter Faith -claim because it seems to the Faithful that an eternal creator gets over the problem of cosmic origins, when in fact it doubles them.

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 #357

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’).

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:05 pmThat'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.

Either this “Nothing” is true nothingness (a complete absence) or it is really something.

If the former, then there is truly no thing there to act in any way or have any sort of characteristics whatsoever. God creating the world sometimes gets compared to a magician doing magic. This Nothing-then-Something scenario is far beyond that; magic occurring with no magician at all.

If the latter, then, at the least, it gets knocked out as a viable option argument for the personal nature of the cause. This Nothing that is truly a Something isn’t personal.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:05 pmI was going to say 'No,' but maybe I am. Because I'm saying that a hypothesis that nothing that creates (becomes) something has less to explain than a claim of a intelligence that creates something, because one has to explain where the creator came from. That is, as you say, two things. Aside that an intelligent creator may imply many things to explain.

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

If this ‘Nothing’ is rightly named, a true nothingness, then our universe is simply uncaused and popped into existence. I’ve already given a short summary of why I think this is not the rational position to take.
Miles wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:11 pm
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.

I’m sure my inclusion of various critiques from various individuals in the same post makes this harder. Here it is:
The Tanager wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:02 pm
Miles wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 8:50 pmWhy? Why would the cause of the universe necessarily have to be

1. eternal?
2. non-spatial?
3. immaterial?
4. atemporal
5. personal?

Gotta show your work Tanager.

Moreover, a conditional premise, one using the term "IF," as with your P4 here, invalidates any absolute conclusion such as P5.

Of course. As I said, I didn’t want to give every single support in an opening post as that would make that post unbearably long. We can then focus in on what you all want to focus in on.

As for the logical validity of P5, it follows from P3 and P4. The if statement of P4 was established as true in P3 (from P1 and P2).

1. Eternal? Everything that begins to exist has a cause. There must be an ultimate cause that has always existed. That ultimate cause is what we are talking about here.

2. Non-spatial? The cause, as the creator of space, could not, itself, be spatial. Otherwise we would have something spatial existing before anything spatial existed, which is absurd.

3. Immaterial? The cause, as the creator of matter, could not, itself, be material. Otherwise we would have something material existing before anything material existed, which is absurd.

4. Atemporal? The cause, as the creator of time, could not, itself, be temporal. Otherwise we would have something temporal existing before anything temporal existed, which is absurd.

5. Personal?

Argument 1

There are two types of causal explanation: scientific (in terms of laws and initial conditions) and personal (agents and their volitions). A first state of spatio-temporal matter cannot have a scientific explanation because there is nothing physical before it, i.e, It cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. Therefore, it can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation.

Argument 2

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

Argument 3

Only personal, free agency can account for a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then the effect would be eternal. How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How could the cause exist without the effect? [For instance, if the temperature has always been below freezing, then any H2O that existed would have been eternally ice. There wouldn’t have been a point where it changed from water to ice.] The best way out of this dilemma is agent causation. In this, the agent freely brings about some event in the absence of prior determining conditions, initiating new effects by choice. In agent causation, the agent-cause could be eternal and the effect temporal.
Miles wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:11 pmIf you look carefully in your textbook you'll note that modus ponens will likely be stated as:

p→q
p
∴ q

This means:

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

A good logic textbook makes it clear that it doesn’t matter which order the first and second premise are in. But you can also just treat my argument as two separate arguments, as well, and do this:

R1. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
R2. The spatio-temporal universe had a cause. [Argued via P1-P3 of my Kalam]
R3. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

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 #358

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.

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:19 pmYou presented torture as an 'objective' moral value, and I showed the errancy of that thinking.

No, I didn’t. I presented “torturing a person for not believing in your worldview” as an objective moral value. Just as one could say killing another person out of self-defense is morally permissible, but killing them because they stepped on your grass is not.

I’m not arguing all torture is wrong (although I think it is). I’m talking specifically about torturing someone solely for the reason that they have a different worldview than yours. They aren’t harming one of yours.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:19 pmInsufficient 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.

You have enough data to answer the question. I’m actually being more specific than you are. Do you have an answer?

To logically maintain that morality is truly subjective, then you must believe that torturing someone for the sole reason of them having a different worldview is not wrong. I’m trying here to determine if you actually are a moral subjectivist because many who say they are, don’t end up actually being one. But, some are, and if you are, then you are perfectly rational to reject the moral argument and deal with only the other 4.

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 #359

Post by The Tanager »

1D. Math

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

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

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

The scenario I talked about isn’t describing one’s environment. It’s using math to find out a truth about our environment that we didn’t know was true.

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 #360

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.

Goat wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 8:40 pmI 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.

Almost every writing propagates certain beliefs, so by this logic no historical document could be used towards believing something is historically true. Instead, historians use documents by biased writers and can still sift sound historical details out of them via criterion such as multiple attestation, independent attestation, embarrassment, etc.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:24 pmIf 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.

I’m doing the complete opposite. I’m saying we start with assuming nothing in the Bible is true until we have enough evidence to consider individual details/events within it, while still not claiming the other parts are historically true.
Clownboat wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:00 pm"As I said, it’s the argument for Jesus’ resurrection that I believe points to a specific god concept" <--- This is what you did say and what I addressed.
Now please tell me, where do the arguments for the resurrection stem from if not from the Bible? The Book is your reason. It is your idol as there is no other source for the diety you have chosen to believe in. If I'm wrong, please evidence the source for your god that is not the Bible. You should probably evidence the resurrection from another source as well while you are at it. Unless I'm correct of course and the source is the Bible as I claim.

Where in the Bible is the argument (in bold above) I gave for the resurrection? Where, in my support, did I say P1 is true because the Bible says those are the three facts surrounding the resurrection?

My support for P1 involves Biblical documents (not accepted or rejected wholesale, but used as historical documents that may or may not contain truth in them), Jewish documents, Roman documents, historical criteria like multiple attestation, independent attestation, embarrassment, and the like. Using the Bible as a historical source to glean truth from is not using “The Book as [my] reason”.
Clownboat wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 3:00 pmSneaky sneaky. This would be like me asking you to prove that unicorns don't fart fairy dust.
I need to show resurrections are not possible as much as you need to point out that unicorns have never been shown to exist outside of human imagination (where all the other god conepts come from, not yours of course, that one is real... because the Bible).

First show supernatural is possible, THEN we can talk about falsification.

All six of my arguments are arguments for the supernatural. What you are doing here, to extend your analogy, is that I’m giving an argument for unicorns and then you ask me for a different argument for unicorns instead of responding to the one I made.

Or, to use a more scientific analogy, it’s like a scientist showing you the natural effects that lead to us positing the existence of electrons and then you asking them to prove that electrons exist prior to listening to their argument from effects to electrons being the cause.

Post Reply