Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

[unknown soldier]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Tanager]

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.

Answer my question first...

Did you, a conscious entity, intentionally decide to exist, or did your mother make that decision for you?

Sure, I can answer it. I was not a conscious entity before being conceived, so I could not intentionally decide to exist. Now, how is that relevant to my argument?

[The Tanager]

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.

It 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.

Okay 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.

Please 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.

[JoeyKnothead]

...

Okay 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.

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

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.

Pointing 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.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Answer my question first...

Did you, a conscious entity, intentionally decide to exist, or did your mother make that decision for you?

Sure, I can answer it. I was not a conscious entity before being conceived, so I could not intentionally decide to exist. Now, how is that relevant to my argument?

I gotta retract here. I misunderstood the point to be an unintended consciousness couldn't exist..

Pologies to all affected.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Mathematics, as a language, is a human construct.

We've devised symbols and such to help explain observations or ideas.

A herd of cows ain't sitting there counting off, a fretting a what critical number'd come and have some of em culled.

I’m not talking about math as a language, but the concepts our mathematical language pick out. Again, things like mathematical equations spurning one on and leading to scientific discoveries.

Having 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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Torturing a person for not believing in your worldview is wrong. Do you think such an action is not wrong?

I have no problem torturing holy hell out of anyone who'd harm one of mine. Where it's reasonably assumed their worldview has em on the side of hurting one of mine.

I didn’t say anything about them harming one of yours

I did.

So we see that torture ain't an objective moral value.

and I don’t see how that’s reasonably assumed. We can update it, though. “Torturing a person, who will not harm one of your own, for not believing in your worldview is wrong.” Do you think such a torture is not wrong?

I see no need to move a goalpost I just placed in the ground.

The fact that folks torture others is clear evidence they ain't got em no moral qualms about the doing it.

[Miles]

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’).

"The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following syllogism:" [please note the Kalam is presented as a syllogism: that is, two premises plus one conclusion. No more no less]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist.
___________________________________
Therefore, the universe has a cause

Note: there is NO mention of "eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal," or any attributes of god in the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

You are noting a distinction often made between the Kalam proper and the conclusions we can draw from the Kalam about the cause of the universe.

There's no such thing as the "Kalam proper," only the "the Kalam," plus whatever is pinned onto it.

Anyone familiar with Craig’s writings knows he will always bring up what the cause of the universe must be like, sometimes formalized into premises, sometimes not. Call what I gave something other than the Kalam, if you want. An argument doesn’t fail because of its name.

Of 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.

Sorry, but I have to give your argument an unconditional F.


.

[Miles]

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.

Gotta show that P1 is indeed true. Need your proof, Tanager. PLUS, as I pointed out, conditional premises, those using the term "IF," cannot lead to an absolute conclusion. At most, all you can say from your argument about god is that he may exist.

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.

.

[brunumb]

(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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Late to the party it seems that yet again we are arguing for the existence of a creator -god (name your own) and arguing consciousness and First cause.

I don't buy either of these just as I don't buy the argument against abiogenesis. I see 'Consciousness' as having developed from instinct, pack mentality and problem - solving; all evolutionary, not mystery. The problem with First Cause is of course, what 'caused' the god? To assert that 'it was always there' is as baseless a Faith -claim as 'Consciousness cannot exist without God'. 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.

As 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.

Back to you bods.