Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
unknown soldier
Banned
Banned
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:32 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 122 times

Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #451

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:16 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #448]

The Tanager: I agree that is a problem. I don’t see how it’s relevant to my argument.

JK: Cause all we know of God's morality is that spoken by Christians (or other theists), who can't show they speak for the god it is they claim they do.

You can propose a god you can't show exists has him an opinion on morality ya can't show he does. That fact hardly represents confirmation for your argument.
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.
_____________________

From my position, the list Tanager uses is not making any claims as to the nature of the subject "GOD" [even that it can be argued that "God" is the generic Christian idea of GOD] - the subject matter remains a hypothetical, and is best handled from that perspective, rather than bring in arguments which naturally veer away from that understanding.

One can - easily enough - propose a GOD one cannot show to exist
One can propose that the invisible GOD has an opinion on morality.
Certainly, such proposals do not constitute confirmation for an argument therefore, being correct, any more than they constitute confirmation for an argument being incorrect.
The gist of my argument lies in declaring a god would know what is objectively moral, and moreover, for human beings.

I can just the same declare he wouldn't, by virtue of not being human.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #452

Post by William »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #451]
The gist of my argument lies in declaring a god would know what is objectively moral, and moreover, for human beings.

I can just the same declare he wouldn't, by virtue of not being human.
I understand your sentiments herein JK.

But my perspective Naturally forbids me from attempting to put an image onto something which is obviously invisible.
If GOD by [in relation to] nature, is invisible, this means the same to me as our minds being invisible to each other, except'n when we care to share our information.

As to morality - my understanding through study of Theism, is that there is something definitely going on which may not all be accounted for re the delusion theory.

The best we have to go by is Nature Herself, and therein, - as non-theists have argued well, we pick up our sense of morality by following the clues on how to survive and prosper in a wildly hostile environment.

[perhaps one day we will all learn to celebrate our collective morality.]

Put simple, the similarity stops there as two branch away from one, and fight like savages for supremacy.

Two mind-sets in opposition to each other, are accidents waiting to happen.

I do not know and cannot say
That Natural Neutral is the way

But I can say, that those who give it a shot seem to have the advantage.

On the question "Do we exist within a creation?" the answers simply have it for those who've decided already. Shooting at one another over the parapets, has real world consequences.

The answer my friend, is that we don't know right now so we all best shut up on making declaration either way, and pass the potatoes...

...GOD may be watching, and curious besides...best look like I am worthy of being tuned into...

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #453

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 8:37 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #451]
The gist of my argument lies in declaring a god would know what is objectively moral, and moreover, for human beings.

I can just the same declare he wouldn't, by virtue of not being human.
I understand your sentiments herein JK.

But my perspective Naturally forbids me from attempting to put an image onto something which is obviously invisible.
If GOD by [in relation to] nature, is invisible, this means the same to me as our minds being invisible to each other, except'n when we care to share our information.

As to morality - my understanding through study of Theism, is that there is something definitely going on which may not all be accounted for re the delusion theory.

The best we have to go by is Nature Herself, and therein, - as non-theists have argued well, we pick up our sense of morality by following the clues on how to survive and prosper in a wildly hostile environment.

[perhaps one day we will all learn to celebrate our collective morality.]

Put simple, the similarity stops there as two branch away from one, and fight like savages for supremacy.

Two mind-sets in opposition to each other, are accidents waiting to happen.

I do not know and cannot say
That Natural Neutral is the way

But I can say, that those who give it a shot seem to have the advantage.

On the question "Do we exist within a creation?" the answers simply have it for those who've decided already. Shooting at one another over the parapets, has real world consequences.

The answer my friend, is that we don't know right now so we all best shut up on making declaration either way, and pass the potatoes...

...GOD may be watching, and curious besides...best look like I am worthy of being tuned into...
Typically we'll stated.

One reason I find your position regarding a Cosmic Mind so compelling, or so hard to refute, is it doesn't introduce judgement. An intelligent mind'd surely look at humans as just another critter, if warlike.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13970
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #454

Post by William »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #453]
One reason I find your position regarding a Cosmic Mind so compelling, or so hard to refute, is it doesn't introduce judgement.
It is a particularly tricky position to create and maintain. To begin with I had to notice when I was being judgmental re the thoughts in my head re whatever my situation was.
[There was more slipping back into old ways to begin with]
But perseverance does have its own rewards.
There is no need to imagine an entity which is always judgmental, and superimpose [project] that as an image on an otherwise invisible GOD.
An intelligent mind'd surely look at humans as just another critter, if warlike.
I suspect that there are more layers than just the one perspective.

A universal Entity GOD [Cosmic Mind] might be unable to relay to an individual human mind in a direct manner, and may have designed mediums in which to accomplish this [re Jung's Archetypes]
William: I follow the idea that Jung's Archetypes give us enough verification that ghosts, angels, demons, gods and the like are real influences, and every individual who delves deep enough into their Self [for the purpose of understanding] can start to appreciate the connection therein and even learn to interact with the Archetypes for the betterment of said Self.{SOURCE}
whereby a mind the approximate size [perspective] of the Earth, would have a better chance of succeeding.
Obviously human institutions alone are unable to provide adequate medium capability between the biggest mind and one of the smallest minds [again re perspective] so I tend to see the great advances of human invention being secretly influenced by said mind toward some type of stabilization.

Meantime, life goes on all around us...although it ain't all "mean"...

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4951
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #455

Post by 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.


JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:04 pmCause all we know of God's morality is that spoken by Christians (or other theists), who can't show they speak for the god it is they claim they do.

You can propose a god you can't show exists has him an opinion on morality ya can't show he does. That fact hardly represents confirmation for your argument.

I haven’t spoken for hardly any specific moral actions (Christian or otherwise). I’m not proposing what I think God’s opinions are on all the issues. That is irrelevant to my argument, which is about whether there are some objective morals and, as irrelevant, why I haven’t presented that as confirmation for my argument, no matter how many times the straw man gets brought up.


P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.


Does theism lead to objectivism or subjectivism?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:04 pmYou've not shown he'd know anything, but beyond that, you've not shown he'd know what's objectively good for humans.
I guess one might say a creator God just randomly threw some stuff together without knowing or caring how it turned out, but even that is irrelevant to premise 1 of my argument.

The premise says that theism is the only worldview that can logically give us objective morality, not that all theisms give us objective morality.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:04 pmI mean that just as you say evolution (or evolutionary theory) can't provide objective moral values, neither can the Christian.

So, because X can’t do A, neither can Y do A?


Does atheism lead to objectivism or subjectivism?
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:33 pmThe objective idea in no - theist (or evolutionary - in the broadest sense) ethics is that it has an objective basis - human well being. That it is relative in how we try to decide what is best for human well -being is a different matter.

Objective well being requires a purpose that it’s meant to be aiming at, based on how it is made. It says things should be such and such a way. Atheistic evolution directly rejects that idea. There isn’t even a judgment that species should survive; some will, some won’t. Atheistic evolution speaks to how things are, not how they are supposed to be. It simply gives us “being,” not well-being.


P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:04 pmIf there's an objective moral value, name one. Remember, murder ain't it, cause history shows some folks have em no problem with it.

As I’ve said: torturing someone for the sole reason of having a different worldview from you (And don’t change it to just “torture” again). Whether you think that is akin to ice cream tastes or not, no culture has ever claimed such a thing was moral or treated it as akin to ice cream tastes. Those institutions and individuals who have tortured for that sole reason justify their actions, which shows they agree with the universal moral principle…otherwise they would feel no need to justify it.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 1:33 pmNow, I guess that what you mean by 'objective morality' is a set of unshakeable laws that are not open to question or revision. But where are they? You said (as I recall) that you don't want to appeal to the Bible. Very well, so where are these unshakeable laws? I would suppose that you would appeal to a moral compass or an innate sense of right or wrong. But all that we have is an innate desire for what's best for our well being, which is the objective basis I referred to - which is biological/evolutionary, as I said. It is chimera and plainly false to suppose that these are god -given. They are educated instinct taught to us, and differ in various societies. This is plainly relative, and moreover changes over time and it is right that it should. It is god -based codes of morals that drag their feet and only play catch -up for fear of losing customers.

One can have a discussion over what all the laws are, if we can know all of them, etc. but that is not this discussion. This discussion, as a discussion of the argument I presented, is whether there is a set of laws or not.

I’ve appealed to a universal agreement on some underlying principles. I do think it’s innate in humans and that this is shown by how it exists universally. Atheistic evolution would provide different people with different principles. This points us to the existence of objective morality. At that point, we then consider what could provide that objective basis. Atheistic evolution not only doesn’t provide an objective basis, but (rightly understood) doesn’t claim to provide such a basis.

If you disagree, then please (1) show how atheistic evolution leads to a truly objective morality (back to P1)...or…if you agree that it leads to subjectivism, show how it (2) better accounts for universal moral principles than objectivism or (3) argue for why there aren’t universal moral principles across cultures.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #456

Post by JoeyKnothead »

The Tanager wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:10 pm 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.


JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:04 pmCause all we know of God's morality is that spoken by Christians (or other theists), who can't show they speak for the god it is they claim they do.

You can propose a god you can't show exists has him an opinion on morality ya can't show he does. That fact hardly represents confirmation for your argument.

I haven’t spoken for hardly any specific moral actions (Christian or otherwise). I’m not proposing what I think God’s opinions are on all the issues. That is irrelevant to my argument, which is about whether there are some objective morals and, as irrelevant, why I haven’t presented that as confirmation for my argument, no matter how many times the straw man gets brought up.
My comments reflected your having said your proposed god "would know" something you can't show he'd know.

I'll retract the Christian reference.
The Tanager wrote: Does theism lead to objectivism or subjectivism?
All morality is subjective.
The Tanager wrote: I guess one might say a creator God just randomly threw some stuff together without knowing or caring how it turned out, but even that is irrelevant to premise 1 of my argument.
You can't even show a creator God threw anything together.
The Tanager wrote: The premise says that theism is the only worldview that can logically give us objective morality, not that all theisms give us objective morality.
Your premise fails to establish fact.
The Tanager wrote:
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:04 pmI mean that just as you say evolution (or evolutionary theory) can't provide objective moral values, neither can the Christian.
So, because X can’t do A, neither can Y do A?
I ain't arguing how the alphabet gets along.
The Tanager wrote: Does atheism lead to objectivism or subjectivism?
All morality is subjective.
The Tanager wrote: As I’ve said: torturing someone for the sole reason of having a different worldview from you (And don’t change it to just “torture” again).
You do NOT have the authority to tell me how I can or can't respond.

Torture is shown to be used by many folks for many reasons, and as such, is a subjective moral value.
The Tanager wrote: Whether you think that is akin to ice cream tastes or not, no culture has ever claimed such a thing was moral or treated it as akin to ice cream tastes.
History's full of examples of folks being punished for having the wrong religion, or belief. That's fact.
The Tanager wrote: Those institutions and individuals who have tortured for that sole reason justify their actions, which shows they agree with the universal moral principle…otherwise they would feel no need to justify it.
The fact they did it shows they have no problem with it.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4951
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #457

Post by 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.



P1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:43 pmAll morality is subjective.

So you agree with what P1 states: if atheism is true, then morality is subjective.


Does theism lead to objectivism or subjectivism?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:43 pmMy comments reflected your having said your proposed god "would know" something you can't show he'd know.

I'll retract the Christian reference.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:43 pm
The premise says that theism is the only worldview that can logically give us objective morality, not that all theisms give us objective morality.

Your premise fails to establish fact.

I should have said P1 implies that at least some theisms, if true, would show morality to be objective. It’s the support I’ve given that establishes this implication of P1. All I need to do here is give an example of one type of theism that, if true, would lead to morality being objective.

Traditional Christian theism is one such example. In this worldview, God designs humans for a purpose, which includes treating each other (and the world) morally. If true, this God would know what’s objectively best for humans to morally do

This, in no way, makes this argument an argument for Christian theism. This data is brought in to help establish that P1 cannot be rationally replaced with a premise that says something like: whether theism or atheism is true, morality is subjective. If you think that is a true premise, then you have the burden to support it.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:43 pmYou can't even show a creator God threw anything together.

Why would one need to show God threw something else together in order to claim P1 or show that God threw morality together?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:43 pm
I mean that just as you say evolution (or evolutionary theory) can't provide objective moral values, neither can the Christian.

So, because X can’t do A, neither can Y do A?

I ain't arguing how the alphabet gets along.

Then, if this is an important critique, clarify what you are arguing.


P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:43 pm
As I’ve said: torturing someone for the sole reason of having a different worldview from you (And don’t change it to just “torture” again).

You do NOT have the authority to tell me how I can or can't respond.

Torture is shown to be used by many folks for many reasons, and as such, is a subjective moral value.

Of course you are free to respond in any way you want. That’s not what I meant. I don’t see how changing my example is anything but responding to a straw man, though. If you want to show why it’s not or respond to the moral value I used to meet your challenge, then please do so.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:43 pmHistory's full of examples of folks being punished for having the wrong religion, or belief. That's fact.

Absolutely. But irrelevant. Those who have done the torture justify their actions. They make an exception for such and such a reason. They wouldn’t do that if they didn’t agree with the moral value to begin with.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3232 times
Been thanked: 1984 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #458

Post by Difflugia »

The Tanager wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 11:04 amGod would know what is objectively good for humans (which is what I was saying). There is the additional question of whether this God wants what is objectively good for humans. Still, there would be an objective morality, even if God doesn’t abide by it. Thus, my claim that theism provides objective morality still stands.
I'm going back through the thread and trying to figure out what you mean by "morality" and "objective" and I can't.

If morality is independent of what any god "wants," then why does its objective existence depend on a god's existence? All you seem to be saying is that the universe having set of rules about "what is objectively good for humans" being baked into it requires a god. I can intuitively see a sort of logic to the idea that if such a human-centric, objective morality exists, then it must have been a god that put it there, but now you seem to be saying that the only requirement is that some god knows about it. It such a set of rules does exist and can exist even if the gods don't want whatever that is to happen, then why is their knowledge important? In that case, what are you arguing is dependent on the gods?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4951
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #459

Post by The Tanager »

Difflugia wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:30 pmIf morality is independent of what any god "wants," then why does its objective existence depend on a god's existence? All you seem to be saying is that the universe having set of rules about "what is objectively good for humans" being baked into it requires a god. I can intuitively see a sort of logic to the idea that if such a human-centric, objective morality exists, then it must have been a god that put it there, but now you seem to be saying that the only requirement is that some god knows about it.

I was saying that what is good for humans (or anything else) depends on what their objective purpose or design is (if there is any). A creator God could bake an objective purpose into its creation. Atheistic evolution rejects such an objective purpose.

I also said that, as the creator of that objective purpose, God would know what is objectively good for humans, at least for some theisms. It doesn’t seem like a God could bake an objective purpose into creation and then not know what it is.

Does that clarify my view?

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3232 times
Been thanked: 1984 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #460

Post by Difflugia »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:58 pmDoes that clarify my view?
Yes. That's not how I understood what you said before, but your clarification makes sense.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply