Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
unknown soldier
Banned
Banned
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:32 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 122 times

Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #561

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 12:24 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: 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?
William wrote:
JK wrote: 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.
William wrote:
JK wrote: 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.
William wrote:
JK wrote: 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.
William wrote: 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.
JK wrote: 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]
JK wrote: 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.
William wrote: 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.
JK wrote: 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.
William wrote: 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.
JK wrote: 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.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6606 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

Re: As The Universe "Sits"

Post #562

Post by brunumb »

William wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 11:52 pm 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. :P

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.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: As The Universe "Sits"

Post #563

Post by William »

brunumb wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:32 am
William wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 11:52 pm 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. :P
Even with the best of intentions and planning. :P :P
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.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4951
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #564

Post by The Tanager »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:13 amYou seem to've moved from "rational" to "logical"

No, I’m using them both and, in what you are possibly misunderstanding, doing so in two different contexts. I’ve spoken of the logically possible answers to a specific question. Your post then brought up the distinct logically possible responses to that same question.

Now, it’s quite possible that the most rational response (not answer, but response) to any question is “I don’t know” or “we can’t know”. I’ve shared why I don’t think that is the case with this question.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:13 amExactly. Where we don't know the answer, there's no need to present scenarios that restrict answers to only the answers we provide.

Why's there a universe?

Cause God.
Cause there's a universe.

Which answer better comports to our observations?

That the answer's discomforting ain't no reason to declare it 'illegal' (my term).

“Cause God” is an actual answer to that question, whether right or wrong. “Cause there’s a universe” doesn’t answer that question; it ignores what it is asking.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:13 amWhere've you shown the universe ain't uncaused?

You declare it so, but fail to put the truth to that notion.

Here all I did was say uncaused and self-caused were different things. This was in response to you speaking as though they were the same thing. Self-causation being illogical has nothing to do with whether being uncaused is illogical or not.

As to showing why I think the universe is uncaused, I’ve done it in this thread in relation to the Kalam.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:13 amRemember, even if we accept the big bang as the precursor (or ongoing) cause to what we now observe, that doesn't get us to what prior form the universe might've taken. Think of it like dynamite - we're observing the explosion, not having seen if it was a stick of it, or a round blob. (Where analogies are a poor means of discovering truth)

That Kalam argument is not dependent on the Big Bang being the beginning or there being a prior state of the universe.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:13 amWe scientifically observe the results of a rapid expansion of material, and not what that material might've looked like, or for how long, before that expansion.

Yes, and that doesn’t impact the Kalam at all. The philosophical arguments for the space-time universe having a beginning remain.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:13 amWhere "magic" is an invoking of the unknown, and unknowable, we know the universe is there, and can point to it and say, "See, right there". Gods, and their proposed actions, not so much.

Invoking a personal being as the cause of the space-time universe is not invoking the unknown or unknowable. You are simply using “magic” as a rhetorical way to describe (and dismiss) non-scientific endeavors. You are implying the truth of a philosophical claim (that science is the only way to get rational knowledge) with no support behind it being true and a claim that is, in fact, obviously self-defeating because it isn’t itself a scientific statement.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:13 amOf course we can say the expansion of the universe is the universe changing states in specific ways.

The problem comes from declaring a god we can't show exists s the specific reason it's doing all that changing.

I can declare it's cause the all powerful emus needed em a place to stay. At least I can point to an emu. Unless you wanna declare emus don’t need em no place to stay.

I’ve given the philosophical argument supporting my claim. If you want to critique that, then go ahead. Guess what, you’ll be doing philosophy in order to do so. Not scientific observation but philosophy. You’ll be going against your scientism to do so, while claiming such philosophical endeavors aren’t fact.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:13 amPer site rules, I'm under no obligation to refute your claims.

You're the one declaring how logical it is to claim a god caused the universe, the onus is on you.

I merely pointed out the flaws in your scenario, without ever having to prove either of your restricted answers're correct or not.

As I’ve already said on this thread, obviously, I’m not saying you are under a physical obligation to refute the claim. I’ve made the claim and offered support. But when you point out the supposed flaws, the onus is on you to support those critiques. To rationally defeat a philosophical argument, you need to support your critiques. That’s what I’ve asked.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:13 amI guarantee you, the first scientist that comes along who's able to prove, beyond scientific doubt, that God exists, is gonna be him worshipped as a Jesus, up 'til he goes to the mideast, and they string him up too.

What you are asking is logically impossible because of what science is.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 5:13 amTheists, it seems, looooooove to harp against science, or -giggle- scientism, when it doesn't help, but love to have it at the table when it does.

Of course science, and 'scientism' are ruled by their own philosophy, so I'm not sure why there's this distinction here.

I love science. Scientism is not science; it’s a philosophical claim that science is the only reliable way to knowledge. A claim that is obviously self-defeating.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4951
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #565

Post by The Tanager »

Diogenes wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:00 pmYou make an error in several of your posts on this subject by referring to "atheist" views. I make no such reference. I simply look at the social and physical sciences and see no need to add a "god must have done it" element. Science is not atheistic. If science discovers evidence of a divine being, a creator, it will publish the evidence.

A supernatural being, by definition, cannot have scientific evidence for or against it, as science is the study of the natural world. This clearly means I don’t think science is atheistic. Nothing I’ve said about your view is going against the science.

You aren’t just looking at the social and physical sciences, you are also making philosophical claims about the data. That atheistic philosophical worldview is what I’ve been referring to as, by its own definition, leading to morality being subjective.
Diogenes wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:00 pm'Objective' and 'universal' are not synonyms, but we can see objective morality (that is, society's accepted norms) cross culturally as I have demonstrated.

“Objective morality,” in the traditional discussion we are discussing, has never referred to “society’s accepted norms”.
Diogenes wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:00 pmYou cannot logically, rationally claim "God' is a logical deduction" or that "objective morality relies on God" because you cannot prove God exists. There is nothing on this Earth that requires "God" as an explanation. Your belief in God is purely subjective, yet you are trying to turn that around and claim God and his supposed "morality" is objective. The opposite is true.

It’s not about proving God exists for P1. It’s about what logically follows from atheistic worldviews and theistic worldviews, taking them by their own definitions (as long as those definitions aren’t logical contradictions). What logically follows is how I’ve phrased P1. This doesn’t make any claim about God existing.

That happens in the conclusion, following from P1 and P2. The way to refute such a conclusion is to show P1 or P2 is false (or the support is bogus) or the form of the argument is invalid. If the argument survives those attempts, then the rational person accepts the conclusion.
Diogenes wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:00 pmI gave the example of 'The Binding of Isaac.' You have not addressed it. It provides an excellent example of the caprice of this imaginary Hebrew god when he violates his own law against murder and demands obedience to himself as his first demand while ordering Abraham to kill his son.
Other examples are the flood myth and the many times this tribal, imaginary 'god' ordered his tribe to annihilate other tribes including women, children and infants, not to mention even their cattle (1 Samuel 15:3). This is not a god of 'objective morality.' This 'god' and Jesus of Nazareth are opposites.

I have addressed these kinds of examples numerous times. My argument does not rely upon the Bible giving us truth about the “God” that is in the conclusion. These examples are irrelevant to my argument. They may be relevant when seeing if we can narrow this “God” down more, but they are irrelevant to the argument you are supposedly critiquing.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4951
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #566

Post by The Tanager »

Diagoras wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 7:26 pmMeaning the questions “where did god come from” and “where did the universe come from” have similar problems. Did God cause himself?

Okay, I’m following you now. These two don’t have the same problems. It's illogical to think everything must have a cause because that means an infinite regression, which is irrational.

In the “extended” Kalam (I don’t remember how in depth we’ve discussed that one on this thread), there are philosophical arguments for the spatio-temporal universe having to have a beginning because of the very nature of space-time. Something can’t come from nothing, so the spatio-temporal universe would have to come from something else.

What can we know about that something else? Any cause of space-time would itself need to be immaterial and timeless. Otherwise we get back to self-causation. There must be something eternal because infinite regression is illogical. A personal agent is the best explanation of a temporal effect (space-time universe) coming from an eternal cause (that is one argument I think I gave, the best one, but there are others). This personal agent (that must be timeless, immaterial, etc.) is what fills in the term “God” in the argument. Nothing yet about how narrower we can pin this God down as.

The personal cause of the universe, or “God”, doesn’t have the same issues. It isn’t physical and temporal, so it doesn’t have the same problems.
Diagoras wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 7:26 pmAny explanation of an event falls within the scope of science. That’s because science is a method of investigation.

Claims about anything with a physical, measurable manifestation that God may have done can be tested within the realm of science to find out if they are likely true.

I think scientists just need to keep asking questions. The gaps that God may be in are narrowing, not widening.

No, science is the study of nature, not what (if anything) lies behind it. It measures the natural changes, not if anything lies beyond those natural changes. Yes, scientists need to keep asking questions about how physical reality works.

God, as an immaterial being, has never been in any physical gaps. In no way have I made a God of the gaps style argument.
Diagoras wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 7:26 pmThey don’t themselves directly support the claim. Rather, they are examples of now experimentally verified, real phenomena that were likely considered ’completely irrational’ before Einstein and Planck came along.

I don’t see why you think they were seen as “completely irrational” before Einstein and Planck came along. None of the experimentally verified, real phenomena are somethings coming from nothing.
Diagoras wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 7:26 pmI’m saying that the claim “self-causation is irrational” is in effect arguing from ignorance: because the physical laws governing it aren’t known.

How is it an argument from ignorance? It's an argument from knowledge. Physical laws can’t go against logic. Every response you are making implies and rests on the laws of logic being unassailable truths of our reality. Those laws show that self-causation is illogical. No scientific discovery can change that because science and all of its discoveries rely upon the laws of logic being true. You can’t make a scientific claim without using them.

User avatar
The Tanager
Prodigy
Posts: 4951
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #567

Post by The Tanager »

brunumb wrote: Mon Aug 22, 2022 5:32 amFor 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.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there is life on other planets, but assuming there wasn’t, why would it’s scope and hostility be a knock against theism?

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #568

Post by Diogenes »

The Tanager wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 8:23 pm
Diogenes wrote: Sun Aug 21, 2022 1:00 pmYou make an error in several of your posts on this subject by referring to "atheist" views. I make no such reference. I simply look at the social and physical sciences and see no need to add a "god must have done it" element. Science is not atheistic. If science discovers evidence of a divine being, a creator, it will publish the evidence.

A supernatural being, by definition, cannot have scientific evidence for or against it, as science is the study of the natural world. This clearly means I don’t think science is atheistic. Nothing I’ve said about your view is going against the science.
You refer to "atheistic world views" frequently. For example, in post #533. In #541 iyou wrote:
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.
[emphasis applied]
Science simply does not mention god. But you seem obsessed with calling it 'atheistic,' in your own words, "dozens of times." Science is not against god, any more than science is "anti-fairy.' It is theocentric to refer to anything as atheistic. Neither I nor the scientific community gives a farthing about being either for or against gods or fairies.

Science looks for truth via observable evidence. If there is evidence of a god, science will report it. So far there is nothing to report. Until evidence is found 'god' is in the same realm with fairies, pixies, trolls, ogres, genies, gins, and goblins. You write as if science is anti god. It is not. Science is not anti god any more than it is anti fairies.
The scientific world would be overjoyed to find evidence of gods or goblins. Science loves to find new things, especially unexpected things. But, perhaps sadly, god does not exist. It is very hard to find evidence of that which does not exist.

Science simply observes. When there is nothing to observe, there is nothing to report. That does not make science 'atheistic.'
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #569

Post by 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 -

Image

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

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

Post #570

Post by JoeyKnothead »

William wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 11:08 pm ...
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.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply