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?

[TRANSPONDER]

Talk to The Razor.
What we do know is that something cannot come from nothing and to believe it is possible that the Universe could have come from nothing is neither logical, practical or applicable to what we DO know about The Universe.

If something cannot come from nothing, then an intelligent creator (more complex than cosmic 'stuff') cannot come from nothing, or even less logically coherent, not have to have an origin at all. So, yes the cosmic origins is a puzzle but an intelligent creator is not the logical answer.

The Razor does not cut to the advantage of Theism.

[The Tanager]

You're missing "I don't know" and / or "we can never know".

Technically, those aren’t options as answers to the question, but I get what you’re saying. I think “we can never know” has no reason, whatsoever, supporting that very bold claim. The “I don’t know” would be the rational position to take only if (at least) two of the three possible truths had equal evidence for them. I don’t think they do.

Beyond that, theists like to discount the universe being eternal, while declaring their god/s to be just that. This is immediately problematic cause we can observe the universe, gods not so much. I can more rationally and logically conclude the universe is eternal than anyone can ever rationally and logically conclude a non-observed god is eternal.

I discount the universe being eternal for thought out philosophical reasons, especially focused around the A-theory of time being correct. That, coupled with the most rational reason for why there is something rather than nothing, seems to me to most rationally lead to the existence of a personal agency (which is why “God” comes in as a designation) creating the universe.

Your belief that something’s “observability” is what leads to the rationality of its truth, seems like scientism. The problem with that is it is self-defeating because the truth of scientism doesn’t rely on observation, but is a philosophical claim.

[The Tanager]

[When I refer to 'god' I am not necessarily referring to Abraham's gd]
Yes, so let's suppose a god. He may be good or bad. He may have created us indifferently, with no purpose. He's just a creator god. He may have no morality or be indifferent. Having a god does not necessarily mean one with purpose.

I agree. That is why I’ve talked about “certain theisms” and “some theisms”. That is what is needed for P1 to rightly be “If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist” rather than “Whether God exists or not, then objective moral values and duties do not exist” or “If God does exist, then objective moral values and duties do exist.”

In any event evolution perfectly explains morality, particularly for social animals like primates.

I've posted it here dozens of times, but Frans de Waal's Ted talk explains this.

As I’ve responded here dozens of times, atheistic evolution (but not theistic evolution) explains a subjective morality. Whether that accurately explains all our observations of morality is a different question. I don’t think de Waal’s talk or anything you’ve said perfectly explains the truth of morality that we observe in this world because I think we observe an objective morality that goes against an atheistic evolutionary account. If you disagree and want to move the discussion forward, then go further into the reasons instead of just re-posting the same talk with your summary conclusion about what it shows.

[The Tanager]

I agree that the only answer to ‘where did this god come from’ that can be in any way satisfactory to theists will be the ‘something eternal’ one, for the same reasons you give for (I presume?) the physical universe.

I’m not following you here. The same reasons theists give for the physical universe what?

That answer will never be satisfactory to scientists however, since there’s simply no evidence for it.

Science, by definition, has no way to answer where a supernatural being came from or whether a supernatural being exists or not. It can certainly help in coming up with the strongest philosophical answer to that philosophical question. If the most rational philosophical answer isn’t satisfactory to scientists, then they need to be better philosophers.

In contrast, there are at least glimmers of evidence to suggest that ‘something can come from nothing’, which, while seemingly an irrational concept may well prove to be real.

The time dilation effects of relativity, and wave-particle duality may appear irrational until we properly understand the complex rules that govern space time, mass and energy, so perhaps claiming ‘something coming from nothing’ to be irrational is similarly premature.

In what way do you think these suggest something can come from nothing?

[The Tanager]

It also could be and trust me I am no expert on these matters, that the "nothing" really wasn't nothing, but rather something we don't or maybe even can't understand. It seems like nothing to us because we don't know what it was.

If it isn’t really a nothing, then you are agreeing that “something can’t come from nothing” by using confusing language. You would still be saying there is something eternal. You would be agreeing with me on that point, while, of course, disagreeing on what that something is.

Of course, and as you say, maybe it really was nothing. In any case, the fact that we don't or can't understand yet why there is something or understand where it came from (if it didn't exist eternally) doesn't add any support to the idea that this other thing existed eternally. It means one thing and one thing alone - we don't know.

Why do you think we don’t/can’t yet understand this question? It’s a philosophical question. Future scientific discoveries aren’t going to change the fundamental philosophical question because it’s a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

[The Tanager]

I suppose it was evolution that made human well being the fundamental instinct, so nobody 'decided'.

It would make human well being a completely subjective value. Even if every human had it, it would still be a subjectively true value that resides in our instincts alone, not necessarily in other species or in relation to the earth or anything else.

You put the cart before the horse. If you can prove Theism true, then atheism is false and the case for a god (name your own) becomes an argument. Until then, it isn't one.

The case for a god (name your own) becomes an argument for what?

I don't know what 'extended' Kalam is, but Kalam is flawed, not to say, debunked, and still doesn't tell us anything about the cause of the universe.

How is the Kalam debunked? How is it flawed? What I’m calling the “extended” Kalam absolutely tells us something about the cause of the universe. It tells us (if sound) that this cause was timeless, spaceless, personal, among other things.

And even if it did, it just creates the universe, starts life off and lets evolution take its' course with an unplanned morality which puts us just where we are.

What evidence do you have to support this positive claim?

Just claiming that God is eternal is an irrational claim. If a cosmos can't come from nothing (even as basic Stuff which is next to nothing) then how can a complex intelligent being come from nothing or, even worse, not to to come from anything at all? I see that claim of an intelligent creator as getting your case nowhere but an unsupported faith -claim.

No, these are actual philosophical arguments debated within academia of all the highest universities and the highest philosophical publications, with reasons supporting the premises, not unsupported faith claims.

I agree with you that a complex intelligent being couldn’t come from nothing. But how is being eternal worse than coming from nothing?

Not much better to talk about a moral code being created and though is was a biological species. What it is, the evidence suggests, is a survival instinct that evolved through pack co -operation to a more complex society in which reciprocity was seen to be (as it already existed) desirable for a complex society to function. Moral codes went on from there. There is no need for a god or created morality.

You may see no problem with your faith -claims but others will and will not accept them. So in the end, you are left with your faith -claim but no case to make. Just declarations of what you have Faith in.

I think the evidence suggests that both (1) atheistic evolution would lead to only subjective moralities and (2) objective morality exists. I’ve shared the reasons why I think this. If you think the evidence suggests otherwise, then lay out your reasoning. Don’t just make a faith claim, but make a case.

Whether people will accept the reasoning could come down to any number of reasons; we should simply share our reasonings to challenge each other’s views.

[Clownboat]

Science, by definition, has no way to answer where a supernatural being came from or whether a supernatural being exists or not.

Also notice that science cannot answer questions about bigfoot, nessie, fairies, unicorns and every other thing that doesn't exist. Every single proposed god concept also falls in this category and this should give you pause. Especially when you find all the other available god concepts as false. Special pleading is being employed and should be avoided.

Humans inventing gods to explain the unknown is nothing new of course. Therefore, to pick a god concept (what is generally more accurate is 'to be born into a god concept') and place faith in it as being a real answer is to jump the gun.

Surely you agree that Allah is not needed in order to explain the world we see around us?

[Diogenes]

I agree. That is why I’ve talked about “certain theisms” and “some theisms”. That is what is needed for P1 to rightly be “If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist” rather than “Whether God exists or not, then objective moral values and duties do not exist” or “If God does exist, then objective moral values and duties do exist.”
As I’ve responded here dozens of times, atheistic evolution (but not theistic evolution) explains a subjective morality. Whether that accurately explains all our observations of morality is a different question. I don’t think de Waal’s talk or anything you’ve said perfectly explains the truth of morality that we observe in this world because I think we observe an objective morality that goes against an atheistic evolutionary account. If you disagree and want to move the discussion forward, then go further into the reasons instead of just re-posting the same talk with your summary conclusion about what it shows.

I'm not sure of your distinction between objective and subjective morality. I don't see it in those terms. What you call morality, the anthropologist calls norms (a general term). My thought is that to presume an 'objective' morality one does indeed have to invent or rely upon an absolute from somewhere. God (an invention to me) provides a basis. So, to claim there is an objective morality is to presuppose a god. Trying use 'objective morality' to prove god exists is therefore, circular.

[This is similar to claiming there is some universal or absolute purpose. The claim of such a purpose is to claim there is a god.]

But in truth, norms come from the society that needs them for social cohesion and cooperative behavior. What ever helps the group survive or provide the most comfort or fulfills the values of the group becomes a norm to further those goals.

I am suggesting that there is no 'objective' morality over and above what a culture or society creates for itself; however, I believe there is a 'universal' morality in that all major cultures have similar rules such as not stealing property, or life, or relationships that belong to others or harm the general peace and well being of the community.

[JoeyKnothead]

You're missing "I don't know" and / or "we can never know".

Technically, those aren’t options as answers to the question, but I get what you’re saying. I think “we can never know” has no reason, whatsoever, supporting that very bold claim. The “I don’t know” would be the rational position to take only if (at least) two of the three possible truths had equal evidence for them. I don’t think they do.

Now you're speaking of possibilities, where nothing can be discounted. Considering we can't now see what happened prior to the real or perceived big bang, both "we don't know", and "we can't know" are more rational answers than "a sentient entity caused it".

I discount the universe being eternal for thought out philosophical reasons, especially focused around the A-theory of time being correct. That, coupled with the most rational reason for why there is something rather than nothing, seems to me to most rationally lead to the existence of a personal agency (which is why “God” comes in as a designation) creating the universe.

You can consider "thought out philosophical reasons" 'til the cows come home - the most rational answer here is that the universe exists, and we don't know how if it's existed for an eternity or not (where you propose an eternal 'creator god').

Proposing a god is not borne of the evidence, but of an anthropomorphism.

Your belief that something’s “observability” is what leads to the rationality of its truth, seems like scientism. The problem with that is it is self-defeating because the truth of scientism doesn’t rely on observation, but is a philosophical claim.

My proposal fits what we can see with our own eyes, your proposal requires a sentient entity of immense power that somehow thunk a whole universe into existence.

"Scientism" has a pretty solid track record of explaining the previously unknown, and, in the matter before us, also has the tools to discover. Theism has a magic entity waving his metaphorical hand, and the thunder roars.

[The Tanager]

Also notice that science cannot answer questions about bigfoot, nessie, fairies, unicorns and every other thing that doesn't exist. Every single proposed god concept also falls in this category and this should give you pause.

If it falls in that category, there would be philosophical backing for it falling in that category. Not scientific backing. Not a lack of scientific backing. Philosophical backing. If you want to move this discussion forward, then show the philosophical backing for this claim.

Especially when you find all the other available god concepts as false. Special pleading is being employed and should be avoided.

Physical entities have had multiple theories explaining them. Of course most of them will be wrong. That’s the nature of truth. If there is evidence behind them, then one isn’t employing special pleading. It’s the same with philosophical claims.

Humans inventing gods to explain the unknown is nothing new of course. Therefore, to pick a god concept (what is generally more accurate is 'to be born into a god concept') and place faith in it as being a real answer is to jump the gun.

My arguments are not “here is an unknown…I know let’s invent a god”. I converted to Christianity a month before starting college, but even if I didn’t, to fault an argument because the proponent has always been in that religion is the genetic fallacy. A philosophical argument rises or falls based on the reasoning, not who is offering the reasoning, so deal with the reasoning.

Surely you agree that Allah is not needed in order to explain the world we see around us?

I do. Not because it’s not my religion, but because of philosophical reasoning.