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]

Differing opinions, or beliefs, about what is true is not a rational reason to believe something is subjective no matter the subject that is being talked about. If morality is subjective, then there must be a different reason.

Morality is the subject. What has been regarded as moral/immoral has changed over the ages and within different societies. Objective morality is not subject to those changes. Accepted morals are the presiding opinions at any given time. Just because some behaviours have been considered as moral or immoral by all societies over recorded history does not mean they are necessarily objective if they are nevertheless subject to change. Where do your proposed objective morals come from and how can we establish unequivocally that they are objective?

[Edited to add "not" ]

[The Tanager]

On the issue of "strawman", it's my position that we can reduce your responses in this matter to their "core moral value".

You prefer, as is your right, to include following, or ancillary circumstances to your examples in this regard. I've never said such were -ahem- irrelevant, or not worthy of consideration, or some such similar notion. What I do say, though, is that we can, in every example you provide, look at that core moral issue, and see, immediately, that it will always be an opinion.

I’ve simply been asking why you think it can be reduced, so that I can rationally consider your reasoning to see if I agree with it.

[The Tanager]

Just because some behaviours have been considered as moral or immoral by all societies over recorded history does not mean they are necessarily objective if they are nevertheless subject to change. Where do your proposed objective morals come from and how can we establish unequivocally that they are objective?

Universally agreed upon human views on moral principles much better fits with morality being objective than subjective. The moral changes have to do with a change of belief about facts (such as the change from believing ‘witches’ existed, to our belief that there aren’t these beings that use magic to severely mistreat other people, especially children). If morality were subjective, we should expect differences of human moral principles, instead of them just happening to all agree.

[JoeyKnothead]

On the issue of "strawman", it's my position that we can reduce your responses in this matter to their "core moral value".

You prefer, as is your right, to include following, or ancillary circumstances to your examples in this regard. I've never said such were -ahem- irrelevant, or not worthy of consideration, or some such similar notion. What I do say, though, is that we can, in every example you provide, look at that core moral issue, and see, immediately, that it will always be an opinion.

I’ve simply been asking why you think it can be reduced, so that I can rationally consider your reasoning to see if I agree with it.

You kinda multiply, and expand onto moral values when you present examples. You present conditionals based on the core moral issue.

Is killing objectively wrong? Yes?

As critters, something must be killed just so we can live (at least with our current technology).

So, looking at the core - killing, well there we go.

Granted, I'm not here to say we oughtn kill school shooters, or that we oughta kill some little old lady with a rap sheet full of jaywalking arrests. And that's exactly why killing, in terms of morality, is subjective.

There's also the issue here of "if God exists", which can't be shown to be the case.

And then "his morality would be objective" can't be shown to be the case, cause a god that can't be shown to exist can't be shown to have an opinion on what is, or ain't it moral - such that we can't even examine his morality.


Your premises are a failure of hopes and dreams not being manifest in reality.

[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.

I’ve simply been asking why you think it can be reduced, so that I can rationally consider your reasoning to see if I agree with it.

You kinda multiply, and expand onto moral values when you present examples. You present conditionals based on the core moral issue.

Is killing objectively wrong? Yes?

As critters, something must be killed just so we can live (at least with our current technology).

So, looking at the core - killing, well there we go.

Granted, I'm not here to say we oughtn kill school shooters, or that we oughta kill some little old lady with a rap sheet full of jaywalking arrests. And that's exactly why killing, in terms of morality, is subjective.

I think what you’ve just described is what many philosophers term moral absolutism vs. ethical situationalism. If I was a moral absolutist, then I would be limited to what you call the “core moral issue,” as the moral principle for my argument concerning moral objectivism. I’m not. You don’t seem to be, either. So, I don’t see why we should become moral absolutists for our discussion of the moral argument I’ve given here.

There's also the issue here of "if God exists", which can't be shown to be the case.

And then "his morality would be objective" can't be shown to be the case, cause a god that can't be shown to exist can't be shown to have an opinion on what is, or ain't it moral - such that we can't even examine his morality.


Your premises are a failure of hopes and dreams not being manifest in reality.

As to analyzing whether a certain theism, if true, would lead to objective or subjective morality, then all we are doing is following the logic. Just as we do with atheistic evolution, if true, leading to morality being subjective (or objective). We assume the worldview and its beliefs are true and then categorize what morality is in that view.

In that, I think it's clear that atheistic evolution, if true, leads to subjective morality. And, classical theism, if true, lead to objective morality.

That says nothing about whether atheism or theism is true. It simply leads us to how to phrase P1 correctly. The atheism or theism question is answered as a result of P2 in concert with P1. If P1 and P2 are more reasonably true than the alternatives, then P3 (God’s existence) is the rational conclusion.

Critiquing an argument that leads to the conclusion that God exists by saying, first show me that God exists, is not sound. It’s like asking one to show that an electron exists prior to giving the evidence that shows that an electron exists.

[TRANSPONDER]

On the issue of "strawman", it's my position that we can reduce your responses in this matter to their "core moral value".

You prefer, as is your right, to include following, or ancillary circumstances to your examples in this regard. I've never said such were -ahem- irrelevant, or not worthy of consideration, or some such similar notion. What I do say, though, is that we can, in every example you provide, look at that core moral issue, and see, immediately, that it will always be an opinion.

I’ve simply been asking why you think it can be reduced, so that I can rationally consider your reasoning to see if I agree with it.

You kinda multiply, and expand onto moral values when you present examples. You present conditionals based on the core moral issue.

Is killing objectively wrong? Yes?

As critters, something must be killed just so we can live (at least with our current technology).

So, looking at the core - killing, well there we go.

Granted, I'm not here to say we oughtn kill school shooters, or that we oughta kill some little old lady with a rap sheet full of jaywalking arrests. And that's exactly why killing, in terms of morality, is subjective.

There's also the issue here of "if God exists", which can't be shown to be the case.

And then "his morality would be objective" can't be shown to be the case, cause a god that can't be shown to exist can't be shown to have an opinion on what is, or ain't it moral - such that we can't even examine his morality.


Your premises are a failure of hopes and dreams not being manifest in reality.

It's a crab apologetic. Even an excuse. Just like the 'slavery' debate. Killing is wrong. That's what it says. Killing animals for sacrifice? Oh no, killing animals is ok. Right then, killing humans is wrong? Only when it's not justified. Which is to say that when God does it or orders it or condones or approves it, it's ok, or at least wrong but sadly necessary.

It just make no sense as a moral code or system and makes more sense if it is just humans struggling to adapt instinctive habits to an ethical code that we had to devise to make a society to work. The problem of Evil yet again. It all make much more sense (though it does not make things easy) if we accept that there is no God (no man made religion - god for sure) and we are on our own and we are responsible for good and evil because we devised morality.

That's quite apart from the idea, apologetic or excuse that 'objective morality' is just what an invisible dictator says (1). But not necessarily does. It sorta works, if you can believe it, but it's such a terrible system by any test of morality of a kind that we would recognise (and supposedly written on our hearts by that same god) that it looks like a contradiction of everything claimed and taught, and rejection (deconversion) is the only reasonable option.

Which is why Faith requires denial, irrationality and dismissal (in the end) or reason and evidence when it conflicts with Faith. And I hold that a truth to be self -evident as we have seen so much denial, fallacy, fiddling and downright irrational behavior on the part of those arguing for the Faith. It's why I rather appreciate Good bad examples of apologetics.

(1) without even addressing the nasty elements of indoctrination, enforcement and punishment of doubt, question or dissent.

[JoeyKnothead]

I think what you’ve just described is what many philosophers term moral absolutism vs. ethical situationalism. If I was a moral absolutist, then I would be limited to what you call the “core moral issue,” as the moral principle for my argument concerning moral objectivism. I’m not. You don’t seem to be, either. So, I don’t see why we should become moral absolutists for our discussion of the moral argument I’ve given here.

The most powerful, most convincing part of your argument, all along, has been "if".

Until you put that if in reality, you're just playing pretend.

As to analyzing whether a certain theism, if true, would lead to objective or subjective morality, then all we are doing is following the logic. Just as we do with atheistic evolution, if true, leading to morality being subjective (or objective). We assume the worldview and its beliefs are true and then categorize what morality is in that view.

If.

That's all you've got, is this dream of yours.

In that, I think it's clear that atheistic evolution, if true, leads to subjective morality. And, classical theism, if true, lead to objective morality.

That says nothing about whether atheism or theism is true. It simply leads us to how to phrase P1 correctly. The atheism or theism question is answered as a result of P2 in concert with P1. If P1 and P2 are more reasonably true than the alternatives, then P3 (God’s existence) is the rational conclusion.

My argument says nothing about iffing evolution, but about the fact that morality is subjective.

Critiquing an argument that leads to the conclusion that God exists by saying, first show me that God exists, is not sound. It’s like asking one to show that an electron exists prior to giving the evidence that shows that an electron exists.

I never said anyone must first show God exists, but did alude to how helpful it could be to your argument / premise / pipe dream.

I refer folks to Transponder's excellent Post 486 for more on this particular matter.

[The Tanager]

It's a crab apologetic. Even an excuse. Just like the 'slavery' debate. Killing is wrong. That's what it says. Killing animals for sacrifice? Oh no, killing animals is ok. Right then, killing humans is wrong? Only when it's not justified. Which is to say that when God does it or orders it or condones or approves it, it's ok, or at least wrong but sadly necessary.

It just make no sense as a moral code or system and makes more sense if it is just humans struggling to adapt instinctive habits to an ethical code that we had to devise to make a society to work. The problem of Evil yet again. It all make much more sense (though it does not make things easy) if we accept that there is no God (no man made religion - god for sure) and we are on our own and we are responsible for good and evil because we devised morality.

We seem to agree that moral absolutism isn’t true. Objective vs. subjective morality is a different issue, however. On subjective morality, there is no Evil, just like there is no Bad ice cream favorites. There is no good and evil, just difference. Only on objectivism is there truly a problem with evil. Consistent subjectivists have no problem with evil. They may have a problem with another's taste, but not evil. And, while here, why even have a problem with another's taste? We wouldn't think someone who had a problem with me liking the ice cream flavor I do is rational.

That's quite apart from the idea, apologetic or excuse that 'objective morality' is just what an invisible dictator says (1). But not necessarily does. It sorta works, if you can believe it, but it's such a terrible system by any test of morality of a kind that we would recognise (and supposedly written on our hearts by that same god) that it looks like a contradiction of everything claimed and taught, and rejection (deconversion) is the only reasonable option.

Yes, I agree that view is terrible. It’s not my view. More importantly, I don’t see how this is a critique of the moral argument I’ve given (if you meant it as such).

[The Tanager]

If.

That's all you've got, is this dream of yours.

It’s not all I’ve got. I’ve shared why the ‘ifs’ are most reasonably true, which means the ‘thens’ are also most reasonably true, should one want to be the most reasonable in their beliefs. I hope being the most reasonable we can be is not just a dream of mine.

My argument says nothing about iffing evolution, but about the fact that morality is subjective.

If you have nothing new to add to support it as a fact, then I’ve nothing new to critique it as a supposed fact.

[JoeyKnothead]

If.
That's all you've got, is this dream of yours.

It’s not all I’ve got. I’ve shared why the ‘ifs’ are most reasonably true, which means the ‘thens’ are also most reasonably true, should one want to be the most reasonable in their beliefs. I hope being the most reasonable we can be is not just a dream of mine.

As I've asked before, who decides what's "reasonably true" here?

Your use of that term seems to imply anyone who disagrees ain't being reasonable.

What part of if creates truth?

My argument says nothing about iffing evolution, but about the fact that morality is subjective.

If you have nothing new to add to support it as a fact, then I’ve nothing new to critique it as a supposed fact.

You're the one carrying on about "atheistic evolution", so that's on you to put truth to your claims.

I can toss out the entirety of evolutionary theory...

And your attempts to if truth into existence still fail.