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]

Do you think the Hindu Gods work through humans?
Do you think Allah works through humans?
Does the Christian God work through humans?
Are you answers consistent or inconsistent?

Since we both acknowledged that we do not know if humans are just doing what humans would do and some see that through the lens of their favorite god concept, we can't pretend that in a special instance, a god is actually doing what we don't know.
Since we can't know if the gods are involved, it is inconsistent to see a god involved in one religion while ignoring it as an explination for another.

It is not inconsistent to say one god (or sets of god) exists and works through humans while other god(s) that people believe exist don't actually exist and, therefore, can't work through humans.

It certainly is inconsistent to claim your god exists while the others are human fabrications unless you have powerful evidence that only applies to the existence of your favorite god and none of the general arguments against the existence of God apply to yours.
What is your evidence that only applies to your god of choice?

[brunumb]

Rocky, my pet rock, responds to my prayers in exactly the same way as God allegedly does for Christians. So, is a god even necessary?

[The Tanager]

It certainly is inconsistent to claim your god exists while the others are human fabrications unless you have powerful evidence that only applies to the existence of your favorite god and none of the general arguments against the existence of God apply to yours.
What is your evidence that only applies to your god of choice?

Yes, I absolutely agree. That would be inconsistent in a special pleading sense. I have not done that, however. I was in a discussion about a Biblical passage on prayer. My statement was that "according to Christianity, God chooses to work through people a lot." That's a statement that is simply telling a Christian view, not trying to prove Christianity is true. I will gladly enter into a conversation on why I think Christianity is true, either here or elsewhere if people think it's off topic.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I will gladly enter into a conversation on why I think Christianity is true, either here or elsewhere if people think it's off topic.

That whole dead man walking deal shows clearly that the claims of Christianity're about as true as me liking to go shopping with the pretty thing.

[TRANSPONDER]

It certainly is inconsistent to claim your god exists while the others are human fabrications unless you have powerful evidence that only applies to the existence of your favorite god and none of the general arguments against the existence of God apply to yours.
What is your evidence that only applies to your god of choice?

Yes, I absolutely agree. That would be inconsistent in a special pleading sense. I have not done that, however. I was in a discussion about a Biblical passage on prayer. My statement was that "according to Christianity, God chooses to work through people a lot." That's a statement that is simply telling a Christian view, not trying to prove Christianity is true. I will gladly enter into a conversation on why I think Christianity is true, either here or elsewhere if people think it's off topic.

I think we would all be fascinated to see you set out here (as to as to start a thread on it might not be "A Question") why you think it is true. Presumably that would (since it is not 'why you believe' not include appeals to Faith or to personal experiences.

[The Tanager]

I'm an open book with my beliefs. There will be nothing based on “faith" or my personal experience. I will briefly share my current summary thoughts. To keep this initial post as brief as I can, I’m not showing the support for every premise. I do believe each premise can be supported. So, I’m not assuming any of these premises are true. I am more than willing to share the support of any and all premises you want to ask me about. I think there are two elements to this: theism vs. atheism and Christian theism vs. non-Christian theisms.

1) I think there is a cumulative case for theism against atheism built, at least, on the following arguments:

A) The Kalam Cosmological Argument

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’).

B) The Fine-tuning Argument

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
P3. Therefore, it is due to design
P4. Design necessitates a designer
P5. Therefore, there is a designer

C) The Moral Argument

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.

D) The Applicability of Mathematics to Reality

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.

E) The Argument from 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.



2) The case for Christian theism comes from an argument for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm an open book with my beliefs. There will be nothing based on “faith" or my personal experience. I will briefly share my current summary thoughts. To keep this initial post as brief as I can, I’m not showing the support for every premise. I do believe each premise can be supported. So, I’m not assuming any of these premises are true. I am more than willing to share the support of any and all premises you want to ask me about. I think there are two elements to this: theism vs. atheism and Christian theism vs. non-Christian theisms.

1) I think there is a cumulative case for theism against atheism built, at least, on the following arguments:

A) The Kalam Cosmological Argument
...

From what comes God?

B) The Fine-tuning Argument
...

Puddles must leave you mesmerized.

C) The Moral Argument
...

Please present just one objective moral value.

D) The Applicability of Mathematics to Reality

Where there's stuff, and someone has fingers, mathematics is a simple matter of finding out what to call each number.

E) The Argument from Consciousness

P1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.
...

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

2) The case for Christian theism comes from an argument for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
...

None can show Jesus ever existed, much less that human-god hybrids create viable offspring.

[brunumb]

B) The Fine-tuning Argument

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

Stumbling at the first hurdle.
Please demonstrate the validity of P2.

[Tcg]

B) The Fine-tuning Argument

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
P2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

Stumbling at the first hurdle.
Please demonstrate the validity of P2.

Right, what we really have here is:

P1. The fine-tuning of the spatio-temporal universe is due to design.

This also assumes that there is fine-tuning at play and that the universe is temporal. Neither have been established just as the rejection of physical necessity or chance hasn't been.


Tcg

[benchwarmer]

I'm an open book with my beliefs. There will be nothing based on “faith" or my personal experience. I will briefly share my current summary thoughts. To keep this initial post as brief as I can, I’m not showing the support for every premise. I do believe each premise can be supported. So, I’m not assuming any of these premises are true. I am more than willing to share the support of any and all premises you want to ask me about. I think there are two elements to this: theism vs. atheism and Christian theism vs. non-Christian theisms.

1) I think there is a cumulative case for theism against atheism built, at least, on the following arguments:

A) The Kalam Cosmological Argument
...

From what comes God?

B) The Fine-tuning Argument
...

Puddles must leave you mesmerized.

C) The Moral Argument
...

Please present just one objective moral value.

D) The Applicability of Mathematics to Reality

Where there's stuff, and someone has fingers, mathematics is a simple matter of finding out what to call each number.

E) The Argument from Consciousness

P1. If God did not exist, intentional states of consciousness would not exist.
...

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

2) The case for Christian theism comes from an argument for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.
...

None can show Jesus ever existed, much less that human-god hybrids create viable offspring.

Joey, if there were such a thing as six pin bowling, you would win every time

You knocked each one down faster and more succinctly than they were briefly setup.