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?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Diogenes]

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #551]

You seem to've moved from "rational" to "logical", so let's think on logical...

Logic is only as useful as the rules under which it applies. Under your criteria / questions, we leave out rationality, and impose a new set of rules, where our only available, or "logical" answers're confined to the problem at hand.

So it may well be, under your scenario, that you've found the 'logical' answer. But is that the best answer? I say it ain't cause the scenario causes it a confinement of possible, rational answers.

We simply don't know the universe has, or hasn't existed, like proposed gods, for an eternity. What we do know is there it sits, being it a universe. Being a thing we observe.

Then here you come along with your scenario and declare a god we don't observe has him qualities we don't observe, patting yourself on the back for the 'logical' solution that doesn't afford us a rational answer.

At the very least, if one is going to entertain the idea that the Universe exists because "GOD" - one would have to align the motivations of the GOD for creating The Universe, with how The Universe actually is unfolding...as it 'sits'...

If one can make the necessary explanations, "GOD did it" can remain on the table as among the possibilities being tabled re "reasons for why it exists"...

Explanations re "How it unfolds" have so far not eliminated that possibility...and so we continue to examine the incoming data of experience...

[Diagoras]

[William]

[JoeyKnothead]

At the very least, if one is going to entertain the idea that the Universe exists because "GOD" - one would have to align the motivations of the GOD for creating The Universe, with how The Universe actually is unfolding...as it 'sits'...

If one can make the necessary explanations, "GOD did it" can remain on the table as among the possibilities being tabled re "reasons for why it exists"...

Explanations re "How it unfolds" have so far not eliminated that possibility...and so we continue to examine the incoming data of experience...

In considering the motivations or methods of an unobserved, omnipotent, omniscient god, we can propose anything, and remain within the bounds of 'logic'.

Explanations here're little better'n, "How perfect is that hole, that it'd hold that perfect amount of water?"

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Where there are Gods which are said to have been created, the questioning of statments that the god was "not created", is reasonable.

I propose that in debate, it's reasonable to challenge any claim.

If I declare there's a god who got created, I should be honor bound to support my claim, thus...

Where the statements re a God 'has always existed' - it is unreasonable to be then asking questions as to "how did God come about?" and stuff like that.

In support of declaring the universe to be "caused" or "created", as above, a claim that's made should be open to challenge, and the claimant with an nth of honor beholden to support the claim.

...
A statement that "some thing" cannot derive from "no thing" is logical based on the evidence within the universe, thus cannot be said to be "premature" of knowing differently.

Then God, being it a something must also have been derived. From what, we leave to the claimant.

There should be no excusing the claimant simply cause a challenge brings em discomfort, or exposes the errors of their thinking.

Glimmers of evidence to the contrary - while these would be interesting - are simply not enough to support that it is rational to proceed prematurely along the path that any thing can derive from a non-thing.

Cool.

From what glimmer did God, a thing, derive?

...
The physical laws governing the Universe show us that every thing in the Universe derives from some thing in the Universe, and scientists appear to be saying that the current science is showing us that the Universe had a beginning.

So we ask such claimant, such scientist, who'd make such a claim, in debate to support their claims in this regard.

Until it is shown to be otherwise, even that we might like the idea that the Universe has always existed, there is no compelling evidence available to make it so.

Says those proponents of a god that can't be observed, to've "always existed".

"We get to claim a god we can't show exists, and how bout that, he always has, and y'all're picking on us when ya ask how come he's immune to the rules we place on the universe."

If one makes a claim, in debate, they should have the honor to support that claim, rather than make excuses as to why they can't, or won't.

I'll not be bound to play by the rules of theist illogic.

[William]

William: If one can make the necessary explanations, "GOD did it" can remain on the table as among the possibilities being tabled re "reasons for why it exists"...

Explanations re "How it unfolds" have so far not eliminated that possibility...and so we continue to examine the incoming data of experience...

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #556]

JK: In considering the motivations or methods of an unobserved, omnipotent, omniscient god, we can propose anything, and remain within the bounds of 'logic'.

Only as it pertains to this Universe JK. We can observe the Universe so should at least be able to deduce why any Creator might have created it.

For example, we cannot make the claim that the GOD-Creator of this Universe is "omnipotent, omniscient" because we cannot see such attributes in the evidence of the Universe...so that is only an avoidable statement of opinion.

If we can point to anything in the Universe and show that a GOD-Creator didn't/couldn't have create that thing, then we can confidently stride in that direction sure that our lack of belief in gods is the correct interpretation.

JK: Explanations here're little better'n, "How perfect is that hole, that it'd hold that perfect amount of water?"

How perfect is the Universe that it can allow life to thrive within it on just the one planet that we know about?
Is the lack of life as we know it, an indication that no GOD-Creator was involved in the making of it, or can it be argued that it is perfect for that one thing?

Are we able to reverse engineer to a point where we can categorically say with certainty that the evidence supports there is no requirement for us to think that we may exist within a Creation?

If not (I have never been shown such evidence) then I think it is necessary to at least keep that idea on the table for more consideration...as my 'jury' has yet to see all the evidence before it can retire to chambers and think on the best verdict.

Currently there are too many unknowns to make the call...

[William]

William: Where there are Gods which are said to have been created, the questioning of statements that the god was "not created", is reasonable.

Where the statements re a God 'has always existed' - it is unreasonable to be then asking questions as to "how did God come about?" and stuff like that.

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #557]

Then God, being it a something must also have been derived.

Is "God being a something" a statement of opinion you are making, or a claim you are making?

I propose that in debate, it's reasonable to challenge any claim.

I propose that before any claim is challenged, that one is confident a claim - rather than a statement of opinion - is being put forth.

If I declare there's a god who got created, I should be honor bound to support my claim

Yes you should be, but it was not a claim you made but a statement of opinion? If the former, then yes, you would need to support you claim...

William: Where the statements re a God 'has always existed' - it is unreasonable to be then asking questions as to "how did God come about?" and stuff like that.

In support of declaring the universe to be "caused" or "created", as above, a claim that's made should be open to challenge, and the claimant with an nth of honor beholden to support the claim.

Agreed. First one must ascertain that the person is making a statement of opinion rather than a claim.

William: A statement that "some thing" cannot derive from "no thing" is logical based on the evidence within the universe, thus cannot be said to be "premature" of knowing differently.

Then God, being it a something must also have been derived.

Since - in this case - you are the one saying so, is it your claim that "God is something" or just your opinion?

From what, we leave to the claimant.

Well, only if'n you are actually making it a claim rather than offering a simple opinion.

There should be no excusing the claimant simply cause a challenge brings em discomfort, or exposes the errors of their thinking.

Indeed. We can cross that bridge as we come to it.

William: Glimmers of evidence to the contrary - while these would be interesting - are simply not enough to support that it is rational to proceed prematurely along the path that any thing can derive from a non-thing.

Cool.

From what glimmer did God, a thing, derive?

You need only answer that if you are claiming God is 'a thing'. First you would have to show that God was 'a thing' [an object of some sort, I am assuming you are meaning] and then we can look at that thing you are referring to as a "God" and see what can be seen therein to support your claim.

William: In the face of the evidence the Universe provides, it is acceptable to have the opinion that "self-causation [of said Universe] is irrational", therefore, it is not a statement from ignorance.

The physical laws governing the Universe show us that every thing in the Universe derives from some thing in the Universe, and scientists appear to be saying that the current science is showing us that the Universe had a beginning.

So we ask such claimant, such scientist, who'd make such a claim, in debate to support their claims in this regard.

Sure. If such scientists are hereabouts, they are welcome to contribute their own opinions or claims on the matter.
Fortunately we have the internet and there are reams of scientific papers available, none of which I have come across that definitively describe God as a 'thing' or claim that God does not exist or claim that we do not exist within a creation... such papers might exist...have you read any?

[All said an done, you and I don't need a "scientist" to tell us our experiences are really experienced by us...]

William: Until it is shown to be otherwise, even that we might like the idea that the Universe has always existed, there is no compelling evidence available to make it so.

Says those proponents of a god that can't be observed, to've "always existed".

Says the science, first and foremost...unless you have scientific information which shows us that this universe has actually always existed...do you have such evidence JK?

[JoeyKnothead]