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?

[Goat]

1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

I would settle for 'any evidence beyond just making a declaration'. How can that statement be tested to see if it's true?

Where did I do that? In what you quoted before saying this, I gave some of the reasoning that made it more than just a declaration.

Of course you are falling into the trap of thinking that there is moral objectivity (handed down by God, presumably). But my argument is that it is only what humans do and couldn't be anything else.

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

Let us see you do the following.

1) Please show that the statement that objective morals would not exist if god does not exist it true.
2) Please show that objective morals and duties exist.


This is piling up unsupported claim after unsupported claim.

[Diogenes]

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.

Putting utter nonsense in the form of a syllogism does not change its status as nonsense.

You continue to make wildly unsubstantiated and speculative claims like "objective values cannot exist without a 'god.'

One could just as easily and with more credibility claim:

"P1. The god of the Bible accepted slavery as an acceptable practice.
P2. Slavery is universally condemned as morally reprehensible.
P3. Therefore the god of the Bible is not moral.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's a good one. One might also argue:

God orders no killing (murder - or unjustified killing)
God orders murder (e,g non -combatants, children) in warfare.
Therefore God (the mythical being depicted in the Bible, at any rate) is hypocritical, unjust and immoral. At least by any morals written on Our hearts.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

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

They contradict

I think the contradictions mostly involve misunderstanding the genre for a modern historical way to do things.

Mark shows that there was originally no resurrection account.

No, it doesn’t. It just means Mark didn’t feel a need to share an extended resurrection account. It’s clear the author believes the resurrection happened.

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

They each have unique elements, yes, but that doesn’t mean they contradict.

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

No, it doesn’t suggest that. Why not that Paul’s experience came after Jesus’ ascension and therefore, would be of a different kind, yet still be able to be equated to seeing Jesus, who remains in existence?

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

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

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

I think we can understand the Bible (other than crazy stuff like Revelation, which is surely symbolic) clearly enough. When The synoptics say that an angel explained that Jesus had risen but John has Mary report back and says nothing about that, it is quite clear what the contradiction is and the excuse of not understanding historical genre is no excuse.

I have heard several excuses at to why there is no resurrection in Mark. People have to make up their minds, but Mark, as (surely) the earliest ought to be the one that set out the way the resurrection developed, from the appearances to the women to the appearances to the disciples ()which is why the Freer logion was added). That it just has the angel sitting there explaining everything and that's all is because that's all there originally was, and the fact that three contradictory accounts are in the other gospels is evidence (I'd say proof) that each writer had to invent their own story because there originally wasn't one. And yes, they do contradict, severely, continually and terminally, despite the denial of Bible -apologists.

That Paul's vision was not at the time of the resurrection (or even shortly after as he is not one of the 500) indicates an explanation that the resurrections he talks of might also be visionary, especially as they do not agree with the gospel resurrections. Equating later and unrelated visions (if that is what they are) with the gospel accounts is pretty much an equivocation fallacy - like the one saying that...well, slavery in the Bible is ok or not slavery at all as paying taxes is a form of 'slavery'. It is not the same thing at all, and neither are visions of a risen Jesus (in the head) the same as seeing an actual risen Jesus. in the flesh.

It's true that this just a hypothesis of mine (though there is some supportive evidence) but it does account for why Paul mentions a resurrection that didn't (according to the internal evidence of the Gospels) actually happen. at That will checkmate any possible 'There's no other explanation' gambit. And it's no more speculative than your claim that Jesus remains in existence. I'd bet my rental income that he's dead.

[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’).

Show the universe was caused into existence. Best we can tell, there sits the universe. To propose it was caused by a cause you can't show occured is errant, logically speaking.

My showing is the above argument (and support that supports these premises). I’m not just proposing something; I’m giving an argument for it. For it to fail to be the most reasonable position to take, it must be logically invalid or one of the premises must be less reasonable than alternatives. It’s not logically invalid. What premise(s) do you disagree with and why?

So, if there's that cause there, of the universe being created, we can reasonably and logically ask, "What caused that cause". Theists, that's what caused it.

No, that’s not reasonable. The argument leads to the cause being an eternal (and therefore uncaused) cause. “What caused that uncaused cause” is not a reasonable question.

And you don't understand that simply presenting an argument is not to establish fact.

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

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

Your statement here is not an argument. It is a declaration without any support.

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

No, I’ve done more than declare. I’ve presented the reasoning for the declarations.

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

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

And to say that is to misunderstand the argument. I agree that your quote above is a goofy argument and it is one that I don’t offer.

"P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause." False. Things can be in existence without a cause. This claim is made for 'God.'

P1 is not “everything in existence has a cause”. P1 is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The conclusion of the argument (among other things) involves the cause being eternal, which means that this cause did not begin to exist but has always existed. It’s the other attributes, particularly the one of the cause being personal, that makes it so that we attach the label of “god” to it.

"P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist. False. It may have always existed. This claim is made for 'God.'

I gave reasons behind thinking the spatio-temporal universe began to exist. Which of those reasons do you disagree with and why? Or, what reasoning do you have that shows the universe has always existed?

P3. Therefore, "the spatio-temporal universe has a cause" does not follow.

If by this you mean that since you think you showed that P1 and P2 were false, that means P3 is false, then I’ve responded above. If this is adding a new critique, that the form of the argument is logically invalid, then why do you think that?

[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.

Let us see you do the following.

1) Please show that the statement that objective morals would not exist if god does not exist it true.
2) Please show that objective morals and duties exist.


This is piling up unsupported claim after unsupported claim.

I clearly gave support in 380, even though your response was an unsupported claim that I simply made a declaration there without any support.

To summarize

(1) for non-theistic accounts of morality we have two types: (a) those which lead to subjective morality, like atheistic evolution and (b) those which lead to objective morality, like Wielenberg’s ‘godless normative realism’. Those of type (a) agree with P1. I gave reasons to reject Wielenberg’s view (namely, there is no accounting for ‘goodness’ attaching itself to certain events and, even if one could do that, there is no reason why we ought to care that ‘goodness’ attached itself to those events).

What do you disagree with in the above and why?

(2) most people agree with P2, but if you disagree with it, then you have to go against common sense as well as the uniformity across cultures in human history towards certain moral principles that would not happen if morality were subjective.

What do you disagree with here and why?

Putting utter nonsense in the form of a syllogism does not change its status as nonsense.

You continue to make wildly unsubstantiated and speculative claims like "objective values cannot exist without a 'god.'

One could just as easily and with more credibility claim:

"P1. The god of the Bible accepted slavery as an acceptable practice.
P2. Slavery is universally condemned as morally reprehensible.
P3. Therefore the god of the Bible is not moral.

No, I’ve supported my claims and will continue to do so in deeper and deeper ways as needed. So, you do likewise here. Support these claims and I’ll critique them. Part of my critique will be that even if you succeeded in showing your argument to be reasonable, it is irrelevant to any of my arguments since none of them are based on the Bible being divinely inspired and truthful in all that it says, so perhaps it’s best to first lay out why this argument being true contradicts the moral argument I gave above.

[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.

"There are gullible Christians as well as atheists...." This much is true, but when you gratuitously add, "in every single worldview" you go too far. Naturalists/scientists are not gullible about the supernatural. They do not accept fables, myths, and religious claims that defy the laws of nature.

Science isn’t a worldview. All scientists have a worldview and not all of them are naturalists. Whether the supernatural exists or not is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical one. There are naturalists who reject the supernatural for thoughtful reasons and those who reject the supernatural because they are gullible.

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

If you want to share actual critiques, please do so and I’ll respond. Which contradictions knock any of the three claimed facts from being the reasonable position to take?

I think we can understand the Bible (other than crazy stuff like Revelation, which is surely symbolic) clearly enough. When The synoptics say that an angel explained that Jesus had risen but John has Mary report back and says nothing about that, it is quite clear what the contradiction is and the excuse of not understanding historical genre is no excuse.

Perhaps I should clarify. Yes, there are clear contradictions in the sense of stuff like whether there was one angel or two, was Mary alone or with other women, etc.. There are also perceived contradictions that are really just one author leaving out some story or detail that other authors have in there because of how they were presenting what they wanted to focus on and teach. My point is that ancient writers were more concerned with what the narrative was showing then making sure they had all of the details, told the whole story, set it out in strict chronology, etc.

So, what does this mean for my argument? My argument isn’t that all details as listed are historical facts. None of the contradictions, as far as I can see, show that the tomb wasn’t empty, that the disciples didn't experience some sort of post-mortem appearances of Jesus, and that the disciples didn't believe Jesus was resurrected and didn't make that the center of the Christian message.

That it just has the angel sitting there explaining everything and that's all is because that's all there originally was, and the fact that three contradictory accounts are in the other gospels is evidence (I'd say proof) that each writer had to invent their own story because there originally wasn't one.

That’s not the only possible reason for the author of Mark doing that. You haven’t given sufficient reasoning for accepting your preferred reason over the alternatives. Ancient writers were fine with leaving out details that they believed happened, so it’s faulty to believe that what Mark included was “all there originally was”.

That Paul's vision was not at the time of the resurrection (or even shortly after as he is not one of the 500) indicates an explanation that the resurrections he talks of might also be visionary, especially as they do not agree with the gospel resurrections. Equating later and unrelated visions (if that is what they are) with the gospel accounts is pretty much an equivocation fallacy - like the one saying that...well, slavery in the Bible is ok or not slavery at all as paying taxes is a form of 'slavery'. It is not the same thing at all, and neither are visions of a risen Jesus (in the head) the same as seeing an actual risen Jesus. in the flesh.

I didn’t say Paul’s wasn’t a vision (which isn’t necessarily ‘in the head’ like a hallucination would be). I don’t understand why you think it would need to agree with the gospel resurrections. In what ways would it have to? By Paul including his with theirs is not to equate them as the same kind of resurrection appearance, but to say that he had a post-mortem experience with Jesus like they had post-mortem experiences with Jesus, although the nature of their experiences were different.

[Goat]

1C. Moral

P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
P3. Therefore, God exists.

Let us see you do the following.

1) Please show that the statement that objective morals would not exist if god does not exist it true.
2) Please show that objective morals and duties exist.


This is piling up unsupported claim after unsupported claim.

I clearly gave support in 380, even though your response was an unsupported claim that I simply made a declaration there without any support.

To summarize

(1) for non-theistic accounts of morality we have two types: (a) those which lead to subjective morality, like atheistic evolution and (b) those which lead to objective morality, like Wielenberg’s ‘godless normative realism’. Those of type (a) agree with P1. I gave reasons to reject Wielenberg’s view (namely, there is no accounting for ‘goodness’ attaching itself to certain events and, even if one could do that, there is no reason why we ought to care that ‘goodness’ attached itself to those events).

What do you disagree with in the above and why?

(2) most people agree with P2, but if you disagree with it, then you have to go against common sense as well as the uniformity across cultures in human history towards certain moral principles that would not happen if morality were subjective.

What do you disagree with here and why?

Putting utter nonsense in the form of a syllogism does not change its status as nonsense.

You continue to make wildly unsubstantiated and speculative claims like "objective values cannot exist without a 'god.'

One could just as easily and with more credibility claim:

"P1. The god of the Bible accepted slavery as an acceptable practice.
P2. Slavery is universally condemned as morally reprehensible.
P3. Therefore the god of the Bible is not moral.

No, I’ve supported my claims and will continue to do so in deeper and deeper ways as needed. So, you do likewise here. Support these claims and I’ll critique them. Part of my critique will be that even if you succeeded in showing your argument to be reasonable, it is irrelevant to any of my arguments since none of them are based on the Bible being divinely inspired and truthful in all that it says, so perhaps it’s best to first lay out why this argument being true contradicts the moral argument I gave above.

Pieces where you say you have defended your claim, yet you haven't are as follows.

1) You have not shown that there are objective moral values and dutites.
2) You have not shown that if there are objective moral values and duties that a God is required.

Until you give a convincing argument, or a way to actually test for objective moral values and duties, the argument from morality fails.

[JoeyKnothead]

1A. Kalam
P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The spatio-temporal universe began to exist.
P3. Therefore, the spatio-temporal universe has a cause.
P4. If the spatio-temporal universe had a cause, then that cause would have to be eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal.
P5. Therefore, the cause of the spatio-temporal universe is eternal, non-spatial, immaterial, atemporal, and personal (attributes of what we would call a ‘god’).

Show the universe was caused into existence. Best we can tell, there sits the universe. To propose it was caused by a cause you can't show occured is errant, logically speaking.

My showing is the above argument (and support that supports these premises). I’m not just proposing something; I’m giving an argument for it. For it to fail to be the most reasonable position to take, it must be logically invalid or one of the premises must be less reasonable than alternatives. It’s not logically invalid. What premise(s) do you disagree with and why?

While your argument may be logically valid, it does not offer us any means of confirming the universe "began" to exist.

The more logically secure argument is there she sits, and ain't she a beaut. My assertion is supported by fact, whereas yours relies on the assumption it sets out to prove - the universe has a cause, cause it was caused to've been created.

So, if there's that cause there, of the universe being created, we can reasonably and logically ask, "What caused that cause". Theists, that's what caused it.

No, that’s not reasonable. The argument leads to the cause being an eternal (and therefore uncaused) cause. “What caused that uncaused cause” is not a reasonable question.

It's most certainly a reasonable question, when the argument declares that which can't be shown to be truth.

My argument, "there she sits" is shown to be truth, and relies on no further assumptions.

And you don't understand that simply presenting an argument is not to establish fact.

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

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

Your statement here is not an argument. It is a declaration without any support.

So now you might understand your argument fails for the same reason.

We have no means to confirm the universe hasn't always existed, no means to confirm it was caused into existence.

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

No, I’ve done more than declare. I’ve presented the reasoning for the declarations.

Faulty reasoning, no matter how reasonable, is still faulty.

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

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

And to say that is to misunderstand the argument. I agree that your quote above is a goofy argument and it is one that I don’t offer.

Of course you don't think it's goofy to declare the universe has a cause, otherwise ya wouldn't declare it to have one.

No matter how reasonable you think your argument is, it fails to show the universe was actually, truthfully, and factually caused into existence.

[JoeyKnothead]

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

As Jesus is purported to be a human-god hybrid, we note no such creature's ever been shown to exist...

to've been entombed...

to've been killed...

to've appeared post-mortem.

But you're right about folks believing the above claims.