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?

[Diogenes]

"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.

Scientists who study the world, who study nature, and the physical universe are naturalists.
'A naturalist is a specific type of scientist who studies the natural universe, i.e. what exists in nature, instead of understanding the principles of nature in the laboratory. Thus, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, and atmospheric scientists are all naturalists.' http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6433

Certainly a scientist can compartmentalize his mind and believe in the supernatural because of a religious stance. But it isn't part of his scientific discipline. It is a hope or a belief separate and perhaps in opposition to his scientific inquiries.

[TRANSPONDER]

Indeed. This is the answer to the "scientists who believe" package incorporating: 'the great old scientists were all creationists'. Aside from this (1) curious appeal to science by those who deny it, the point is that, yes, they popped 'God' into the gaps in their knowledge. Their science was indeed, seen as explaining how God did His work. But the work, intended to exalt the Creator, explained how it worked without. (2) Yes, even the damn' near atheist Deists of the founding fathers had no explanation other than God until Darwin, who finally explained a mechanism of creation that did not need a god (3). If the founding fathers had known Darwin's theory of evolution, they would not have needed to be deists.

The point being that there is no real reason why a scientist should be a theist other than Faith. It is NOT based on valid evidence. So, some scientists compartmentalise science and religion and religion is Faith -based and the science is mechanical. Others do indeed try to make science work as evidence for God, but usually it seems that they do not have expertise in that branch of science (indeed Engineers are often claimed as 'scientists', which actually they aren't. They are problem -solvers, not researchers). Some appear to be in the same line (e.g biochemists or geneticists) but seem to miss the actual science involved or misread it (4), or they came up with some rubbish which is nothing to do with science like a genetics scientist who pulled the 'have you looked everywhere in the universe' idiocy. Which is nothing to do with science but everything to do with bad logic. But because he was 'a scientist' he was held up as an authority in a field (logic) he clearly had no clue about. But that's the thing here and the point of the whole apologetic - God -apologists seem to think in terms of written or declamatory authority, not evidence. Someone with Authority speaks and it is supposed to be accepted.

It doesn't work that way Anyone is open to question - even a scientist, especially when they talk rubbish to serve as 'Evidence' to support a godfaith.

(1) characteristic of cult-think, theist -think and alternative -science think, where they deny denigrate and belittle science while at the same time, they long for the endorsement, support and credit of science.

(2) regrettably that story of Laplace saying to Napoleon who observed that his model of the universe did not include God - "It works perfectly well without." is elaborated from a different but related remark, as recorded by someone else.

(3) whoopee, we're on a roll... though of course there is still the origin of the original DNA/cell gap for a creator (name your own) as consciousness (or at least human Reasoning, as animal consciousness is hardly deniable) and the origins of the Stuff from which the BB was made (since the Bang is hardly deniable today, especially as some Creationists use it as evidence for creation). These are really the Three Remaining Gaps for God - and the only ones still partly open. Morality and Bible credibility long having followed Trump's White House correspondence...down the toilet.

(4) whee..like a biochemist who thinks DNA is a software code, which it isn't it is a quite simple trigger -link system. Or a mathematician posing as a scientist who pulls the 'astronomical odds against' fallacy, based a simple mistake in the logical parameters. If you do not assume an intended outcome, whatever you get will be the result. Odds? 1/1.

[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’).

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.

It does offer a means of confirming the universe began to exist. Logic. Not “it’s logically possible, therefore it’s true” but “the illogical cannot be true”. Unless you pinpoint which premise you disagree with and why, then it's illogical to think the spatio-temporal universe is eternal.

And in no way does this argument assume the universe has a cause, it argues towards that conclusion. If you think otherwise than show that instead of just claiming it does 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.

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.

To move the discussion forward you have to do more than say my argument has failed. Tell me where you think it fails. Which part of my reasons for P1 do you disagree with?

(1) Do you think atheistic evolutionary accounts lead to objective morality?
(2) Do you think atheistic platonic accounts have merit?

And for P2 what do you disagree with?

(1) Is torturing an innocent child in line with your common sense?
(2) Is torturing an innocent child accepted as moral within various cultures?

[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.

Scientists who study the world, who study nature, and the physical universe are naturalists.

A naturalist is a specific type of scientist who studies the natural universe, i.e. what exists in nature, instead of understanding the principles of nature in the laboratory. Thus, ecologists, evolutionary biologists, geologists, paleontologists, astronomers, and atmospheric scientists are all naturalists.' http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6433

I’m sorry, I thought you were speaking of naturalism, the philosophy that many scientists adhere to, whether they are “naturalists” or not. Your “naturalist” would obviously not be included under a “worldview” and therefore what I said about all worldviews would not apply to the naturalist as a naturalist. Some “Naturalists” accept the supernatural, rejecting naturalism (where some do so thoughtfully and some because of their gullibility). Some “Naturalists” reject the supernatural for thoughtful reasons and some “Naturalists” reject the supernatural because they are gullible.

Certainly a scientist can compartmentalize his mind and believe in the supernatural because of a religious stance. But it isn't part of his scientific discipline. It is a hope or a belief separate and perhaps in opposition to his scientific inquiries.

Perhaps you are using “religious” differently than I understand it. As I use that term, some scientists believe in the supernatural for religious reasons, some for social reasons, some for philosophical reasons, with all of these doing so outside of their scientific discipline (by definition). It is separate, but it is not in opposition to doing science, as whether the supernatural exists or not is simply not a scientific question (by definition). Now, in the same way, those scientists who disbelieve in the supernatural are also doing so because of something outside of their scientific discipline.

Indeed. This is the answer to the "scientists who believe" package incorporating: 'the great old scientists were all creationists'. Aside from this (1) curious appeal to science by those who deny it, the point is that, yes, they popped 'God' into the gaps in their knowledge. Their science was indeed, seen as explaining how God did His work. But the work, intended to exalt the Creator, explained how it worked without.

I agree some theists have done and still do this. I agree with you that they are wrong. I do not deny science and I have not presented any God-of-the-gap types of arguments. I’m not saying you are saying I did, but if you are saying I am please, specifically, show where you think this is the case.

(2) Yes, even the damn' near atheist Deists of the founding fathers had no explanation other than God until Darwin, who finally explained a mechanism of creation that did not need a god

Darwin’s mechanism does not do away with the need of a god for why there is something rather than nothing.

But that's the thing here and the point of the whole apologetic - God -apologists seem to think in terms of written or declamatory authority, not evidence. Someone with Authority speaks and it is supposed to be accepted.

While some have argued that way, I have not. Throughout history countless people have not argued that way, so the appeal to authority is not even close to the “whole apologetic”. Let’s deal with the apologetic that is here, not the low hanging fruit that no one is sharing in this thread.

[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’).
It does offer a means of confirming the universe began to exist. Logic. Not “it’s logically possible, therefore it’s true” but “the illogical cannot be true”. Unless you pinpoint which premise you disagree with and why, then it's illogical to think the spatio-temporal universe is eternal.

You fail, in your P2, to establish the universe "began to exist". This is important in light of your declaring the cause of the universe to have "always" existed.

You simply can't, and won't ever show your claim in P2 is factually correct.

Let's say that agian... You simply can't, and won't ever show your claim in P2 is factually correct.

SButyeah, we can comfort ourselves in "Why by golly, that's it some sound logic right there", if and only if we accept you speak truth regarding your claim in P2.

And in no way does this argument assume the universe has a cause, it argues towards that conclusion. If you think otherwise than show that instead of just claiming it does that.

It assumes the universe has a cause by declaring it to have "began to exist". You offer nothing other'n that bare assertion in support of, well, that bare assertion. Where've you established, as fact, the universe began to exist (as opposed to declaring, sans evidence, that the cause of that existence always did exist)?

"The universe has to have began to exist, but my cause for it always did, so ain't under the same rules I impart on the universe" is the kinda goofy logic I've come to expect from theists who can only create 'logic' of the most il in support of their god claims.

Your claim might do it a whole bunch of logicing. What it don't do, is tell us the truth.

[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.

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.

To move the discussion forward you have to do more than say my argument has failed. Tell me where you think it fails. Which part of my reasons for P1 do you disagree with?

(1) Do you think atheistic evolutionary accounts lead to objective morality?
(2) Do you think atheistic platonic accounts have merit?

And for P2 what do you disagree with?

(1) Is torturing an innocent child in line with your common sense?
(2) Is torturing an innocent child accepted as moral within various cultures?

Torturing a child invokes an emotional subjective response to me.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

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.

To move the discussion forward you have to do more than say my argument has failed. Tell me where you think it fails. Which part of my reasons for P1 do you disagree with?

(1) Do you think atheistic evolutionary accounts lead to objective morality?
(2) Do you think atheistic platonic accounts have merit?

And for P2 what do you disagree with?

(1) Is torturing an innocent child in line with your common sense?
(2) Is torturing an innocent child accepted as moral within various cultures?

Torturing a child invokes an emotional subjective response to me.

That's why the need to invoke little kids when speaking of torture.

I think it's important to note that "torture" is the operative word here, and that, if the tale be told, God himself decreed a woman oughta forever feel pain when birthing em a young'n. All cause one of em had the unmitigated gall to wanna learn. Stoopid wimmins.

[Diogenes]

[whatever]

NEWSFLASH! Belief in 'psychics' ghosts, unicorns, fairies, angels, demons, gods, goddesses, assorted supernatural twaddle, is all one of a kind. Trying to dress this silliness up with 'Kalam' arguments and pretentious sillyjisims, fake 'history' and other forms of barnyard graffiti only further exposes the nonsense for what it is.

[TRANSPONDER]

Tough love there Dio. But the Theist logic is terrible.

If God is real, Christian arguments would make sense
Their arguments do not make sense
Therefore God is not real.

Start off with an unsound premise, assert the premise supported without valid support, claim the argument won. Where does one buy a copy of: 'Pretzelized apologetics for Christians debators'?

Take the morality argument. Something like: 'Morality can't be from humans as human logic would be relative morality. Morality is actually relative morality therefore it's actually from God but humans messed it up.' or if the Bible is true it is reliable and trustworthy. If it isn't reliable and trustworthy (attempts to deny that it's all wrong having bitten the dust) then it is just that humans mucked it up.

I've said it before but the reasoning makes sense IF one assumes a god is true at the outset. Thus the a priori God claims stands unless it is 1000% disproved, which can never happen if the believers deny demonstrable facts like Chattel slavery in the Bible. Kalam and denial of evolution leaves Biblegod as the Only Explanation if that's the one they start with. If one assumes the Bible is true to start off with, then denial of the wrong science, wrong history and terminal contradiction leaves the faith - claim intact.

The argument from astronomical odds against Life the universe and everything happening by chance makes sense if one begins by assuming an intended outcome with Humans as an intended special creation. Like the atheists say, like rainwater being intelligently shaped to fit the depression in the road.

And what's worse is they project that kind of thinking onto the other side, and then claim it's wrong. didn't we see it with the 'Atheist church' and 'Sciencism' - accusing atheism and science *(materialism) of being a religion. But isn't religious Faith a good thing? No, because it's the Wrong Faith.

It's the epitome of closed -mindedness, and even then they claim it is being open minded to unquestioningly accept all the claims. Haven't we heard it? 'Really read the Bible with an open mind'. What they mean is Open to all the claims without any screening. I swear that's the thinking,. You can bet your Bitcoin on it..