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?

[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.

"Most reasonably true" ain't the same as "is true".

I point out we can't confirm a god exists cause even the best you can do is to assert such a claim is "most reasonably true".

“Most reasonably true” is the best we’ve got outside of pure math and definitions.

In the case of "God, so objective morality", we're stuck with the reports of others, and our knowledge of such things. So in the first bit, we can't even confirm the god in question even exists, to utter an opinion on morality.

So we grant that premise - god exists. Not cause it's "most reasonably true", but just so we can consider here the rest of it. "A god has an opinion on morality" Okay, sure, we pretend a god exists, and we pretend that God has an opinion on morality.

What is that opinion? That we should all fetch about helping one another? That we should all fetch about murdering one another?

Who knows?

That’s not the argument I gave. See the bolded above and address those premises.

Morality is, and always will be, what we, as individuals decide it to be. As individuals, we're incapable of violating our individual morality.

Why do you think we’re incapable of violating our individual morality? I’ve done it just today. I looked at a pretty thing and thought ugly about it.

Morality is subjective, situational, bound to personal opinion. And don't it beat all, that's the objective truth.

I agree it’s situational. But where’s your support for it being subjective or bound to personal opinion?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #507]

I agree with the article that objective morality is highly undesirable by us and that many of us will try to attain objective backing for their own subjective opinion. I’m not sure any of us are totally free of that. That still has nothing to do with whether morality is objective or not (note, I’m not saying this is the author’s argument for it being subjective). Turning to the six reasons “the whole notion of ‘objective’ morality is nonsense.”

(1) Our morality is evolved.

“our moral feelings are there as a social glue to enable us to cooperate with other humans.”

Our moral feelings, at times, tell us to go against the social majority, not cooperate with them at a social cost to ourselves.

(2) Humans are only one species.

”An objective morality must, by definition, be independent of human opinion and thus be independent of humans.”

We are only discussing human morality. Objectivists don’t fault sharks for undertaking forced copulation. This says nothing about whether there are other moral agents in the universe.

Yes. Any species that is a moral agent, could conceivably have different objective moralities for them. We are usually just focused on human morality, thus we talk about human morality instead of other species’ status of moral agency and their objective morality. Objectivists don’t usually believe that sharks are immoral for forced copulation.

(3) Starting from “well being” is subjective.

”OK, but who decided that human well-being is what is important?”

If atheism is true, yes. If theism is true, then one can’t simply put “aside the validity or otherwise of ‘the Creator creates humans with a specific purpose’” because that is how we see that someone would have decided what human well-being objectively consists of, including acting morally towards each other and other species.

(4) Aggregation schemes are arbitrary.

“So you’ve decided that well-being is what matters. Good start. But, if you want to arrive at an objective morality you now need a scheme for aggregating the well-beings of many creatures onto some objective scale, such that you can read off what you “should” do and how you “should” balance the competing interests of different people.

The beauty of accepting that morality is ultimately subjective is that you reject the whole concept of objective aggregation onto an absolute scale, and thus an otherwise insoluble problem disappears.”

I see no reason to think this is insoluble. Where’s the support for that claim?

“Of course many people have proposed their own schemes for aggregating, based on their own preferences, but no-one has derived one from objective reasoning.”

That no one has derived it says nothing about whether it could be derived should one know enough. Lack of knowledge is the problem.

(5) Rooting morality in “God” is still arbitrary.

“After all, plumping for “God’s opinion” instead of human opinion is equally subjective. Who says that God’s opinion about morality is better than Satan’s opinion? The answer that God says that God’s opinion is better is simply circular. The answer “might makes right” is a non sequitur, as is the unsubstantiated claim that being the creator conveys rights to dictate morality.

The traditional response would be to argue that God’s nature is good, which is an appeal to some supra-God objective standard of goodness against which to measure God’s nature. …”

I’ve already addressed this. It’s that bit about ‘the Creator creates humans with a specific purpose’.

(6) No-one has any idea what “objective” morality even means.

“When asked, the advocate of absolute morality explains that it is concerned with what one “should do”, regardless of human opinion or desire. When asked what “should do” means they’ll replace it with a near synonym, explaining that it is what one “ought to do”. But if you press further they’ll simply retreat into circularity, explaining that what you “ought” to do is what you “should” do, and thus beg the whole question.”

Why are we asking what “should do” means? I can understand saying “I think morality means something else” but not that one can’t even comprehend what is being stated.

“The subjectivist has a clear answer here. The “oughts” and “shoulds” are rooted in human opinion, they are what people would like to happen.”

Okay, maybe the author simply means where the should comes from, not what it means. The theistic objectivist has a clear answer: it’s rooted in the purpose the Creator created humans with.

[The Tanager]

This is utter nonsense. Why worship 'the creator?' Assuming this super space alien who built the Earth actually exists, why worship 'him?'

What does this have to do with the argument? That’s a secondary question.

Why would his claims of how we should live be considered "objective?" They are just his dictates, his subjective claim on what we should do.

No, it’s that He designed humans for a purpose and there are, therefore, objective things that cause a human to flourish in that purpose.

This provides a logical, reason based theory for why, objectively, certain basic morality like not lying and not stealing, and cooperating for a common good help the commonwealth of man.

I don’t see how (on your worldview) we can say there is an objective commonwealth. But even assuming that, there is nothing (on your worldview) that says pursuing that is an objectively good thing to do. It’s pure subjectivism.

Your religion based claim is subjective in the extreme. It's based solely on "Do it because God said so. Do not question it."

No, it’s not. As I’ve said, many times, it’s based on God designed humans to flourish in such a way. I’ve shared the reasoning behind it; I haven’t been anti-logic or anti-reason. If you disagree, then show the anti-logic and anti-reason specifically.

[JoeyKnothead]

"Most reasonably true" ain't the same as "is true".

I point out we can't confirm a god exists cause even the best you can do is to assert such a claim is "most reasonably true".

“Most reasonably true” is the best we’ve got outside of pure math and definitions.

That doesn't bode well for your argument.

In the case of "God, so objective morality", we're stuck with the reports of others, and our knowledge of such things. So in the first bit, we can't even confirm the god in question even exists, to utter an opinion on morality.

So we grant that premise - god exists. Not cause it's "most reasonably true", but just so we can consider here the rest of it. "A god has an opinion on morality" Okay, sure, we pretend a god exists, and we pretend that God has an opinion on morality.

What is that opinion? That we should all fetch about helping one another? That we should all fetch about murdering one another?

Who knows?

That’s not the argument I gave. See the bolded above and address those premises.

I contend it's an apt representation.

I've addressed your premises in this, and other posts within this thread.

Morality is, and always will be, what we, as individuals decide it to be. As individuals, we're incapable of violating our individual morality.

Why do you think we’re incapable of violating our individual morality? I’ve done it just today. I looked at a pretty thing and thought ugly about it.

So you obviously have no qualms with looking at a pretty thing, you just tote the yoke of Christian guilt.

Morality is subjective, situational, bound to personal opinion. And don't it beat all, that's the objective truth.

I agree it’s situational. But where’s your support for it being subjective or bound to personal opinion?

Within my posts, within this thread.

That you reject em don't mean there they don't sit.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #507]

Thanks for the well-reasoned response.

I agree with the article that objective morality is highly undesirable by us and that many of us will try to attain objective backing for their own subjective opinion. I’m not sure any of us are totally free of that.

Just one point:

(3) Starting from “well being” is subjective.

”OK, but who decided that human well-being is what is important?”

If atheism is true, yes. If theism is true, then one can’t simply put “aside the validity or otherwise of ‘the Creator creates humans with a specific purpose’” because that is how we see that someone would have decided what human well-being objectively consists of, including acting morally towards each other and other species.

Isn’t this just the grounding problem again? Adding a god as a source is certainly one way to force an answer to ‘where do morals come from?’ but then where did God come from, and did he decide on a moral code before he created Adam, or didn’t he need one until after the ‘forbidden fruit’ incident?

[Diogenes]

[1] What does this have to do with the argument? That’s a secondary question.

[2] No, it’s that He designed humans for a purpose and there are, therefore, objective things that cause a human to flourish in that purpose.

[3] I don’t see how (on your worldview) we can say there is an objective commonwealth. But even assuming that, there is nothing (on your worldview) that says pursuing that is an objectively good thing to do. It’s pure subjectivism

[4] No, it’s not. As I’ve said, many times, it’s based on God designed humans to flourish in such a way. I’ve shared the reasoning behind it; I haven’t been anti-logic or anti-reason. If you disagree, then show the anti-logic and anti-reason specifically.

1. You did not address my argument. Instead you dodged with a false claim you did not support: "That’s a secondary question."

2. You've made an unsupported claim and arbitrarily called it 'objective.' Your 'god,' if he exists may simply be a very powerful alien who acts subjectively and created an independent sentient species for his own whims and purposes. You ASSUME this alien knows what is best for his creation. This is a mere assumption. The alien supposedly gave us independence and free will, so WE get to use it. When the space alien tells us to kill our children as he told Abraham, we get to stand up to him. He can kill us for disobedience, but that does not make this monster right, or moral, or objective.

3. You have know idea what my 'world view' is. I have explained, and supported with citations, that even other animals like chimpanzees and elephants have a sense of morality. You ignored my proof of that, so I won't reiterate.

4. You repeat yourself, again without support. Your space alien (for the purpose of the argument) created us,
but whether he designed us to flourish or not is merely your assumption. On his first attempt he called us good. Then he called us bad and killed 99.99999% percent of us. I do not trust his judgment.
Later he told Abraham to kill Isaac. I do not trust his morality.

I am exceedingly glad this 'god' of yours, this 'space alien' who does NOT have our best interest in mind, who has horrible judgment, who makes mistakes and drowns his own creation, DOES NOT EXIST. It is an absurd, monstrous joke, an illogical fiction who would not understand objectivity if it sat on 'his' face.

[The Tanager]

Just one point:

(3) Starting from “well being” is subjective.

”OK, but who decided that human well-being is what is important?”

If atheism is true, yes. If theism is true, then one can’t simply put “aside the validity or otherwise of ‘the Creator creates humans with a specific purpose’” because that is how we see that someone would have decided what human well-being objectively consists of, including acting morally towards each other and other species.

Isn’t this just the grounding problem again? Adding a god as a source is certainly one way to force an answer to ‘where do morals come from?’ but then where did God come from, and did he decide on a moral code before he created Adam, or didn’t he need one until after the ‘forbidden fruit’ incident?

I don’t see any grounding problem. I believe God is eternal, so God didn’t come from anywhere. I believe God is eternal because of philosophical arguments such as the extended Kalam argument, not because God is defined that way or special pleading or something else, but as a conclusion in what I believe is a sound argument.

As when the moral code was created, in my view, this would have been done prior to creating humans since it depends on what purpose God created humans for. As a side note, I don’t think that contradicts Genesis 3, although I do think it contradicts a popular-level understanding of Genesis 3.

[The Tanager]

1. You did not address my argument. Instead you dodged with a false claim you did not support: "That’s a secondary question."

I didn’t dodge it; I was honestly trying to understand why you thought it addressed my argument because I didn’t see how it did. The argument I’ve presented isn’t about whether one should worship the creator of objective morality, but whether there is a creator of objective morality. Whether one should worship such a being is a secondary question that follows this God actually existing.

2. You've made an unsupported claim and arbitrarily called it 'objective.' Your 'god,' if he exists may simply be a very powerful alien who acts subjectively and created an independent sentient species for his own whims and purposes. You ASSUME this alien knows what is best for his creation. This is a mere assumption. The alien supposedly gave us independence and free will, so WE get to use it. When the space alien tells us to kill our children as he told Abraham, we get to stand up to him. He can kill us for disobedience, but that does not make this monster right, or moral, or objective.

My point here has been that there is a theism (and it’s a general theism, not Christianity) out there that, if true, morality would logically be objective. The reason that is important is that it means P1 should be “If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist” rather than something like “whether theism or atheism is true, moral values and duties are subjective.”

It seems like you might be misunderstanding “for one’s own purposes” as equivalent to “subjective” in “subjective morality”. Those are not the same concept. In the theism I’m speaking about, God does create the purpose of humanity out of His own free choice. That isn’t moral subjectivism. As the creator of the purpose of humans and humans themselves, this God would know what is best for humans to fulfill that purpose.

Sure, there could be a theism with an ignorant kind of God, but the task for me here (in supporting P1) is to show there is a kind of theism where God would know what is best for His creation. I’ve done that.

Now, a God that really wanted you to go against what was best for you as a human, given the purpose He built into humanity, should be disobeyed. Whether that is what is happening with the Abraham story (or the flood story or other stories) is a different issue. For our discussion of the moral argument, assume that story is nonsense.

P1 is about what worldviews lead to, assuming they are true, not if that worldview is actually true or not. Whether the worldview is true is in the conclusion (of the whole moral argument) because of the addition of P2 to the truth of P1. If one believes morality is objective, then theism must be true. Which particular theism is true is a different question, but those theisms that lead to subjective morality would be ruled out.

3. You have know idea what my 'world view' is. I have explained, and supported with citations, that even other animals like chimpanzees and elephants have a sense of morality. You ignored my proof of that, so I won't reiterate.

I didn’t ignore it; I assumed it was true. Assuming all you said there (which is all I know of your worldview and all I’m talking about) is true, logically there is no objective commonwealth. There are different, equally rational ideas about what is best in a situation.

Not only that, even assuming there was only one rational idea about what it means for that species to thrive in that situation, assuming (not ignoring) your claims are true about morality, there is nothing rationally leading us to believe that that species thriving is itself an objectively good thing.

[The Tanager]

“Most reasonably true” is the best we’ve got outside of pure math and definitions.

That doesn't bode well for your argument.

So, it’s on par with things like science, historical conclusions, etc. That works for me. If it doesn’t for you, so be it.

So you obviously have no qualms with looking at a pretty thing, you just tote the yoke of Christian guilt.

No, it’s a belief, not an emotion.

[Diogenes]

1. You did not address my argument. Instead you dodged with a false claim you did not support: "That’s a secondary question."

I didn’t dodge it; I was honestly trying to understand why you thought it addressed my argument because I didn’t see how it did. The argument I’ve presented isn’t about whether one should worship the creator of objective morality, but whether there is a creator of objective morality. Whether one should worship such a being is a secondary question that follows this God actually existing.

Hmmm... two weeks later. I believe I've entirely lost my train of thought. I agree "Whether one should worship the creator" is secondary to whether such a creator exists. I don't believe he does exist. But for the sake of argument, let us suppose such a creator exists. That he exists does not mean he is worthy of worship or that his morality is objective.

Let's take an example from the Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel 15:2-3 where 'God' instructs Saul :

Thus says the Lord of hosts... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’

When Saul returns, God is furious because Saul did not entirely obey. Perhaps he spared some infants. We are not told. We are told that he brought the best of the cattle as 'an offering to God.' As if anyone is going to buy that excuse. Saul is not a favored character in the Bible.

But that is 'secondary.' This great God, this "objective law giver' wants Saul to kill the women, the children, and the infants, because they are not of the 'right' tribe or whatever. It does not matter. What matters is that this supposed master of 'objective morality' orders Saul to kill infants.

No, I would not worship him even if he existed. His 'morality' is certainly not objective. It is tribal. Worse, it is immoral by any standard. As a side note, half the 'Christian' world thinks abortion is the greatest sin ever and claims the Bible says so. Yet they are fine with a 'god' who orders the killing of infants. [Yes, I know. It is a 'mystery.' Or you can make something up, like they had a disease. ]

There may actually be a God, but the one pictured in the Hebrew Bible is hardly the author of 'objective morality.' Even if he exists, he is the author of tribal morality, and it doesn't get much more subjective than that. This is a god and a 'morality' invented by men, men of one specific tribe that justifies enslaving, stealing, and killing babies, as long as they are from another tribe.