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]

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?

It's borne of that whole "God the creator of everything" deal.

Are we gonna now fuss on if God's a thing or not?

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.

I prefer to avoid assumption, so unless a comment's clearly marked or obviously discerned as opinion, I reserve the right to challenge.

There's little a, "Well now about" that can't do to clear up confusion.

Beyond that, I'm aware of a notion called, "slipping a bit of The Word(tm) into conversations", such that I think some folks might try to sneak em a claim in all sneaky like.

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...

See.

Not knowing either way can be confusing. As we're here to debate, I'll err on the side of a claim instead of belief, and retain a right to challenge.

In support of declaring the universe to be "caused" or "created", 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.

A challenge to a claim provides a great opportunity to sort that out.

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?

It's inferring a property based on the claim of "something can't be derived from nothing".

If God is a something, then by the 'facts' of that statement, God must also be derived.

Of course I don't believe god're any more'n mental constructs. I'm just following the statement to its conclusion.

[quote=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.[/quote]

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.
[/quote]
Oh come on.

I'm clearly referring to folks who'd claim a god exists as some sentient entity. They're the ones claiming he's a thing.

Only some folks claim their god is much more than that - to the point of knocking up some married chick so he could come tell us all just how great he is.

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?

I make no claims regarding how the universe came to be, so bear me no burden 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".

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?

When a scientist comes in here claiming to know the non/eternal status of the universe, we'll both pile on him.

My point in all this, is that the theist so often declares the universe "created", by referring to a "creator god", by declaring the universe "had a beginning".

But we see, they can't show the the universe had a beginning, only that we're observing an expansion of it. Yes, that expansion implies the universe was a lot smaller at some point back in time - but that doesn't account for what it "exploded" from.

So they propose a god - a thing - that created the universe, but exempt that thing from the unproven claims they place on the universe.

Then they wanna fuss cause ya called their god a thing.

There's no winning with this bunch, when we gotta start explaining what a noun is.

[brunumb]

How perfect is the Universe that it can allow life to thrive within it on just the one planet that we know about?

Accidents will happen.

For me, the scope of the universe and the utter hostility of most of it for life as we know it precludes any purposeful creation of living things. More so if this is the only planet in that vast expanse where it has managed to thrive. I don't think that it is, but I am surprised that it doesn't give creationists pause for thought.

[William]

How perfect is the Universe that it can allow life to thrive within it on just the one planet that we know about?

Accidents will happen.

Even with the best of intentions and planning.

For me, the scope of the universe and the utter hostility of most of it for life as we know it precludes any purposeful creation of living things.

For me, the scope of the universe and the utter hostility of most of it for life as we know it, plus the curious impulse of humans to want to create life in their own image [transhumanism/AI stuff like that] presents a challenging purposeful intent to make something spectacularly useless into something functional/purposeful.

More so if this is the only planet in that vast expanse where life as we know it has managed to thrive.

I don't think that it is, but I am surprised that it doesn't give creationists pause for thought.

It is plausible enough that we are experiencing this spectacularly useless universe as a simulation - as a long-running - many levelled game in which we - playing within it - attempt to make something useful out of something useless as we play our part.
There may be other 'life as we know it' playing the game as well, and only those players who get to bring their world consciousness to that point, win the right to play on and perhaps eventually discover those other worlds.

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[Diogenes]

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #568]

It is theocentric to refer to anything as atheistic.

[emphasis applied]

I agree that referring to science as having anything to do with atheism is silly but think that it is okay for theists to think of non-theists as "atheistic".

Anything which is of atheism, including atheists, is "atheistic" yes?

I won't speak for Tanager, but I am under the impression he was referring to how science is interpreted by atheists as evidence that a Creator does not exist - superimposing an atheist outlook upon science, therefore placing an atheistic spin on science, much the same way that a theist might put a theistic outlook upon science, therefore placing a theistic spin on science.

I think it acceptable to point it out if it happens, to show the reader that you are aware that it is happening as that is part the definition of being scientific - applying science practically.

It happens. Folk do interpret science through the filters of their atheistic/theistic positions even when it is known that - as you pointed out -



Yet I have never seen that stop an atheist from consistently attempting to use science in their telling of their opinions about gods.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Yet I have never seen that stop an atheist from consistently attempting to use science in their telling of their opinions about gods.

As an atheist, I'm not above referring to science in support of various claims I, or others, may make. It's just such a good source for confirmatory data. That theists can't, or struggle to refer to science in order to promote their beliefs is their problem, not a problem of scientific principles.

As you know, I'm very intrigued by your Cosmic Mind hypothesis. I want your notion to be true, to be scientifically proven, insofar as how neat I think it would be. I'd love for the scientific community to be able to offer confirmation in this regard. Sadly though, you and I enjoy this notion without such confirmation.

Granted, where an atheist (or anyone) refers to science and gets it wrong, we oughta all fuss about that.

As an amateur, a wanna-be scientist, maybe I rely too much on science in support of my own world view. I submit though, that cracking open the bible ain't the way to fix that.