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?

[brunumb]

Again that would depend on if their definition of faith coincided with yours. Those that have an alternative definition might not.

That amounts to nothing more than word games. Faith allows you to believe something that is false just as readily as something that is true. It is therefore not a path to truth. Faith is what is required when someone wants you to believe something that they cannot adequately demonstrate as being true. Faith is not virtue. Faith is a dangerous thing.

[brunumb]

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

All of your points were good. With this one I just wondered why, if God actually wanted to do something, he would need you to pray for it first. Seems to me he would just do what he wants. With all the rules and loopholes involved it is not hard to reach the conclusion that prayer is really just a waste of time. For those who are praying for others it might give them a contented feeling that they are doing something for them, without actually doing anything.

[edit: sp]

[unknown soldier]

I'm not going to quibble over some insignificant differences between your brand of sacred religious violence and Islam's brand of sacred religious violence. If both involve Gods that are to be obeyed to the point of death, and they both do involve such Gods, then they are similar enough to me.

But this fourth attempt is still too vague. It would include a god telling you to be willing to die to save an evil doer and a god telling you to kill yourself in order to punish the evil doer. How is that principle "similar enough" for you?

I just don't like any religion telling me to die, and I have no desire to die to punish an evil doer (whatever that might be). So those differences are insignificant to me.

Why can't people make up religions that don't involve dying? There's enough death in the world as is, and we don't need religionists to add more.

I have supported why I think the language is hyperbole. You havent responded to it.

You failed to convince me that the Bible's genocide stories are hyperbole. If those stories are hyperbole, then why not deem all the Bible's stories to be hyperbole? Or to save face will you only interpret Bible stories that involve genocide to be hyperbole?

Anyway, to follow your lead, I'm going to say that the story of Christ's resurrection is hyperbole. All that talk of him rising from the dead is greatly exaggerated!

An alternative is not to kill children. It's the better choice because that way there are no dead babies lying around. I understand that God is both good and smart. If so, then he can figure that out.

Again, assuming you can show the language isnt hyperbole, what would happen to these babies, if they were left alive?

Why am I supposed to know what would happen to those babies if God didn't butcher them? I hope they would have grown up to be happy adults.

You have been arguing that the Bible stories show an evil God. My point is that if you could show that, then this still doesnt prove the non-existence of the Christian God, which is what youve mainly been attempting to do here.

I suppose an evil God might exist. Are you conceding that your God is evil? If so, then you significantly improve the odds of his existing.

No spy was harmed.

They were lucky, then.

You stop his will from becoming an action, you dont stop his will from being what it is.

How can you will to do what you cannot do?

But in any situation one choice would be good and the rest would be less good.

I suppose. What's wrong with some choices being even better than other choices?

Free will involves moral choices, not things like "I want to fly."

In that case we still don't have free will. I cannot choose to cure cancer, and you have no choice to start a nuclear war. Besides, we may not even know what is right or wrong in a given situation and therefore are unable to make a meaningful moral choice. And I think you have neglected to consider people whose cognitive limitations make it impossible for them to make any moral choices.

I said that if love is choosing the good instead of the bad, then taking away ones ability to choose the bad means taking choice away.

No. You still can choose to do good or do nothing at all.

Love requires choosing.

If you can choose to love, then choose to love excrement. Let me know if you have any luck trying. As for me, I cannot choose to love excrement or anything else. Love comes naturally for me.

If one wants free beings, then one cannot take away all possibility of damage.

I'd gladly trade freedom for safety.

So, you would have to say that creating free beings is stupid. But why think that?

I already explained that if you grant people too much freedom, then they may harm others. That's why we incarcerate people.

Actually, the men who created your God fashioned him after petty, insecure, and vain human rulers. That's why the Bible God becomes jealous and violent if people worship other Gods in much the same way a human despot will punish those he rules over if they aide other rulers.

What specific examples do you think show this?

Examples of what? God acting like a jerk? For starters he condemned the entire human race to hardship because our first parents ate some fruit he told them not to. You can't get much pettier than that.

[unknown soldier]

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

All of your points were good. With this one I just wondered why, if God actually wanted to do something, he would need you to pray for it first. Seems to me he would just do what he wants.

The Christian God is much like a lonely old man who wants people to talk to him and who becomes upset if they don't. Prayer is the attention that he craves.

With all the rules and loopholes involved it is not hard to reach the conclusion that prayer is really just a waste of time.

There's a lot of loopholes, but I'm told that some prayer experts actually get the job done. I've often wondered why if some people get prayers answered, then why don't they help those of us who have no luck with prayer? I suppose answered prayer is not transferable.

For those who are praying for others it might give them a contended feeling that they are doing something for them, without actually doing anything.

Prayer is quick, easy, and doesn't cost a dime. It sure beats working a long time and incurring costs to help people.

[JehovahsWitness]

Prayer is quick, easy, and doesn't cost a dime. It sure beats working a long time and incurring costs to help people.

Well you know people can do both. Praying for others and working hard for others do not have to be mutually exclusive, indeed the bible indicates they should not be.




JW

[unknown soldier]

Prayer is quick, easy, and doesn't cost a dime. It sure beats working a long time and incurring costs to help people.

Well you know people can do both. Praying for others and working hard for others do not have to be mutually exclusive, indeed the bible indicates they should not be.

Sure you can do both, but many who pray think that's enough, or so they say. I'm not speaking hypothetically either because I've been in difficult situations where I could have used real help from Christians only to be told they would pray for me. Do I need to explain that those cheap prayers did me no good?

[Clownboat]

Prayer is quick, easy, and doesn't cost a dime. It sure beats working a long time and incurring costs to help people.

Well you know people can do both. Praying for others and working hard for others do not have to be mutually exclusive, indeed the bible indicates they should not be.




JW

Doesn't change the fact that prayer allows a person to feel like they are doing something without actually doing anything.
Far more would get done in this world if we didn't have religious people pretending to accomplish things via prayer.

Atheist for example don't have such a crutch. If an atheists wants to help, they will need to actually provide value. They can't just pray and if things improve, pretend that they were a factor. No mechanism for self delusion. Not true for religions and prayer.

[The Tanager]

You seemed to be arguing that having a conscious agents action decide something about your life is necessarily a violation of free will. I dont think that is true, so I gave a counter example. If I forced you to pull the trigger, shooting someone you thought it immoral to shoot, then your action isnt free, but your will is. Your free will is not violated. What do you have to say in response?

By that reasoning, why then could God not prevent people acting on their free will to entertain evil thoughts? I highlighted the key word in your response. How do you rationalise being forced to do something as exercising free will if your action isn't free?

Will and action are different things, thats why. As to why a good God wouldnt control the action while allowing free will, I will quote what I said in post 93 anticipating that question:

Regardless of that, I still disagree with this clarified principle you think is true. If I were to physically force you to pull the trigger of a gun to shoot someone you thought it immoral to shoot, then while your action isnt free, your will still is. You can still think the action was morally wrong.

Couldnt God just do that, then, and not negate free will? That is only controlling one moral action, though. With a God who stops all evil actions we are talking about all moral actions being controlled. While, technically, the will could still be free, its a meaningless freedom if no action can be free.

By the way, the examples of car accidents and earthquakes are no different from catching a disease. Also, even if being impregnated by a god might have been an honour for some, it is still a violation if achieved without prior consent.

First, my point was exactly that they were no different and I could have used any of them for the earlier point.

Second, what makes you think God did this without prior consent? The angel does not say God has impregnated Mary, but that He will. Mary says for God to go ahead. If Mary was unwilling, are you sure God would have still done it? In Exodus 4, God tells Moses that he will speak to Pharaoh and set Israel free from slavery. Moses reluctantly agrees to play a leadership role, but does not want to do the speaking. After trying to encourage Moses that he can do it, does God end up forcing Moses against his will? No, God says Aaron can do it instead.

[The Tanager]

Sure you can do both, but many who pray think that's enough, or so they say. I'm not speaking hypothetically either because I've been in difficult situations where I could have used real help from Christians only to be told they would pray for me. Do I need to explain that those cheap prayers did me no good?

I wanted to start this response off with where we agree. I dislike these kinds of prayer, even the times Ive done it and will do it, to my shame. I do it less frequently because Ive learned that a major aspect of prayer is God waking me up to how I can be a part of bringing wholeness to other people in this world.

I also want to say that Im not surprised at the experiences you recount and the thoughts you have around them. I think us Christians hold a big part of the blame for the misunderstandings I think you have of Christianity. I still dont claim to have everything worked out, but I do thank you for sharing your thoughts with me and allowing me to share mine with you.

I just don't like any religion telling me to die, and I have no desire to die to punish an evil doer (whatever that might be). So those differences are insignificant to me.

But we werent discussing whether they were different enough for you to accept one and not the other.

Why can't people make up religions that don't involve dying? There's enough death in the world as is, and we don't need religionists to add more.

They could.

You failed to convince me that the Bible's genocide stories are hyperbole. If those stories are hyperbole, then why not deem all the Bible's stories to be hyperbole? Or to save face will you only interpret Bible stories that involve genocide to be hyperbole?

I dont deem all stories hyperbole because I think its irrational to take an all-or-nothing approach like that. I think every story needs to be looked at on its own merits. Why do you think it should be all-or-nothing like this? Other stories do also involve hyperbole.

Anyway, to follow your lead, I'm going to say that the story of Christ's resurrection is hyperbole. All that talk of him rising from the dead is greatly exaggerated!

I shared reasons why I thought hyperbole is in those accounts. Do you want to counter my reasons? Or do you want to leave that topic behind and support why you think the resurrection is hyperbole? Im willing to talk about anything or nothing.

Why am I supposed to know what would happen to those babies if God didn't butcher them? I hope they would have grown up to be happy adults.

Because you are trying to show that a good being would have acted differently in that situation.

You have been arguing that the Bible stories show an evil God. My point is that if you could show that, then this still doesnt prove the non-existence of the Christian God, which is what youve mainly been attempting to do here.

I suppose an evil God might exist. Are you conceding that your God is evil? If so, then you significantly improve the odds of his existing.

First, why do you think that would improve the odds of existence?

Second, no, I didnt concede my God is evil. I said that if you could get to this step, then your argument is really against the inspiration of some books of the Bible, not against the Christians conception of God.

How can you will to do what you cannot do?

Easily and, at times, heartbreakingly. I want to be able to dunk all the time while playing basketball.

I suppose. What's wrong with some choices being even better than other choices?

A perfectly good God would always make the person choose the best choice, though. Thus, there is no real free will.

In that case we still don't have free will. I cannot choose to cure cancer, and you have no choice to start a nuclear war.

Free action or free will? You can (and hopefully do) want to cure cancer. I could, but dont want to start a nuclear war.

Besides, we may not even know what is right or wrong in a given situation and therefore are unable to make a meaningful moral choice.

Are you saying we need 100% certainty before a choice is meaningful? If so, then why? If not, then what are you saying here?

And I think you have neglected to consider people whose cognitive limitations make it impossible for them to make any moral choices.

What makes you think Ive neglected to consider them?

I said that if love is choosing the good instead of the bad, then taking away ones ability to choose the bad means taking choice away.

No. You still can choose to do good or do nothing at all.

But doing nothing is less good than doing the good thing in that situation.

If you can choose to love, then choose to love excrement. Let me know if you have any luck trying. As for me, I cannot choose to love excrement or anything else. Love comes naturally for me.

Remember how I defined love. It is choosing to will some things good. So, you are asking if I can choose to will the good for excrement? What would the good be for excrement?

If one wants free beings, then one cannot take away all possibility of damage.

I'd gladly trade freedom for safety.

Why?

I already explained that if you grant people too much freedom, then they may harm others. That's why we incarcerate people.

But why is taking away everyones freedom not harming them, or a lesser harm?

Examples of what? God acting like a jerk? For starters he condemned the entire human race to hardship because our first parents ate some fruit he told them not to. You can't get much pettier than that.

Why do you think that this is an additional punishment God adds on and not a natural consequence of the action? If humans were created to work right by being in a trusting relationship with God and then choose freedom from that, then its going to cause some hardships.

[unknown soldier]

I do it less frequently because Ive learned that a major aspect of prayer is God waking me up to how I can be a part of bringing wholeness to other people in this world.

How is that going? I do hope that God has succeeded in waking you up to your full potential in bringing wholeness to the world (whatever that may mean).

I think us Christians hold a big part of the blame for the misunderstandings I think you have of Christianity.

Yo 'pologists sher knows yer stuf! Ah jist hope ya can learn me Kriss-channity beferr ah gits maself dammed fer bein' stoopid.

I dont deem all stories hyperbole because I think its irrational to take an all-or-nothing approach like that. I think every story needs to be looked at on its own merits.

I'm just wondering how you discriminate hyperbole from what is literal. Do you have a formula to do so?

I dont deem all stories hyperbole because I think its irrational to take an all-or-nothing approach like that. I think every story needs to be looked at on its own merits. Why do you think it should be all-or-nothing like this?

My point is that if you can pick and choose to say some Bible stories are hyperbole if you don't want to take them literally, then I can do the same! I say all the Bible stories involving God are mere hyperbole. It's an exaggeration to say God ever did anything.

...do you want to leave that topic behind and support why you think the resurrection is hyperbole?

Obviously it's overstating things a bit to say a dead man was resurrected and left his tomb. It seems more likely to me that a flood washed Jesus' body from his tomb, and his followers exaggerated the story a wee bit.

Why am I supposed to know what would happen to those babies if God didn't butcher them? I hope they would have grown up to be happy adults.

Because you are trying to show that a good being would have acted differently in that situation.

Maybe we see good in different ways. For me it's good to keep babies alive while you think it's good to kill them in some situations.

Are you conceding that your God is evil? If so, then you significantly improve the odds of his existing.

First, why do you think that would improve the odds of existence?

With all the troubles in the world, an evil God seems more probable than a good God.

Second, no, I didnt concede my God is evil.

If you think killing babies is OK, then God still has a chance of being judged as good.

A perfectly good God would always make the person choose the best choice, though. Thus, there is no real free will.

Then let's all make the best choices! To hell with free will.

In that case we still don't have free will. I cannot choose to cure cancer, and you have no choice to start a nuclear war.

Free action or free will?

I assumed will and action are the same. So free will is merely to want to do something? If that's the case, then free will doesn't explain evil. I'm not especially concerned about people wanting to do evil if they cannot act on it.

Are you saying we need 100% certainty before a choice is meaningful?

Not really; I'm just saying that we need knowledge to make moral choices, and we very often lack that knowledge. We cannot "will" to do what is right if we don't know what is right.

And I think you have neglected to consider people whose cognitive limitations make it impossible for them to make any moral choices.

What makes you think Ive neglected to consider them?

People with cognitive limitations belie your claim that we have free will because such people may have no will at all. You seem to have missed this fact.

It is choosing to will some things good. So, you are asking if I can choose to will the good for excrement?

If you have free will, then yes you could want the best for excrement! Why not?

What would the good be for excrement?

You tell me. If you don't know what's best for excrement, then you don't have free will.

I'd gladly trade freedom for safety.

Why?

It's just a preference. You seem to think that freedom is the best thing we could have, but it's merely your own preference. Since wanting freedom over other things is just a preference, your free will argument has no objective basis to it. All I need to do is say that safety is more important than freedom, and the free will argument collapses.

But why is taking away everyones freedom not harming them, or a lesser harm?

Who was complaining about "all or nothing approaches"? I'm not saying it would be best to take away all freedom from people but only the freedom to do harm.

...he condemned the entire human race to hardship because our first parents ate some fruit he told them not to. You can't get much pettier than that.

Why do you think that this is an additional punishment God adds on and not a natural consequence of the action?

Because the myth clearly has God forcing Eve and Adam out of Eden. Obviously eating fruit cannot cause earthquakes or plagues, so God must have had his cruel little hand in these troubles all along.

If humans were created to work right by being in a trusting relationship with God and then choose freedom from that, then its going to cause some hardships.

If God created people to be untrustworthy at times, then it seems really stupid to punish them if they are untrustworthy.

In any case, the fable of Adam and Eve is a Jewish ripoff of older, Babylonian myths. If we understand this fact, then it should be easy enough to understand why prayers fail: A pagan God reshaped for Jewish purposes cannot grant prayer requests.