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?

[Diogenes]

...
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.

Non theists rely on science, on observable facts. Theists use science when they think it supports their interpretations of their favorite religious books. When objective observation contradicts the claims of their favorite religion, they suddenly reject or question science. Their disingenuousness and lack of principle is noted.

As for the "Cosmic Mind..."

[William]

...
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.

I was being specific to statements of opinion, rather than claims.
For example, a common argument from atheists that there cannot be a Creator-GOD because "Evolution" when it is clear that the theory of evolution offers no evidence that we do not exist within a creation.
Stuff like that.

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.

On the surface this sounds logical.
However, on the belief that we exist within a creation = "Therefore a Creator-GOD" there has been no science done which provides any of us with the right to premise. ["Therefore a Creator-GOD"]
Thus, promoting beliefs in ideas of Creator-GODs is cart before the horse stuff.
However, if one proceeds in a horse before the cart manner, the focus is on the idea that we exist within a creation, we can then look for evidence within the reality experience we call 'The Universe" and see what can be found therein to support the notion that the reality experience is a creation.

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.

Thanks for saying so. We share in the intrigue.
For me, the notion certainly appears to be true re the evidence - even through the Message Generating Process under development - [Today's GM] is certainly understandable enough and deals with this subject in more detail.

As I understand it, IF there is a "Cosmic Mind" involved with the creation of our Universe, scientists will eventually [naturally] discover this just by continuing to do science.
In the meantime I do my own science, and am satisfied with the results so far.
Going off of the readership stats so far, there appears to be a consistent reader-interest where I post the GMs - here, and in other internet forums...

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

My position is that - in the last 24 hours - I have decided that am done with interacting with atheists and being distracted by their statements of opinion re the Question of GOD...except for the exception of JK because you have consistently shown a willingness to remain open minded about the idea of a "Cosmic Mind" and it is undeniable that such a Mind - if it truly exists - could be referred to as a "GOD'.
In all my years of interacting with atheists, I have never had the pleasure and - like I say - After years of subjection to atheist opinions, I have had enough of it.

As an amateur, a wanna-be scientist, maybe I rely too much on science in support of my own world view.

What will you do if/when science discovers that we actually do exist within a creation?

I submit though, that cracking open the bible ain't the way to fix that.

That is an irrelevant opinion to me, because - as you know - I am not a Theist or an Atheist because I see no logic in having an opinion on GOD until it can be established that we exist within a creation.

The closest I come to that, is with the notion that there MAY be a "Cosmic Mind" and if such can be identified in ANY religious script, I am open [of mind] to investigating that.

Otherwise - since I am not advocating folk need to do that, it is not an issue I have to answer to.

Thanks for you feedback John.

[JoeyKnothead]

[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.

I was being specific to statements of opinion, rather than claims.
For example, a common argument from atheists that there cannot be a Creator-GOD because "Evolution" when it is clear that the theory of evolution offers no evidence that we do not exist within a creation.
Stuff like that.

Yeah, that'n causes me a fuss too. I offer what retractions'll fix my error in understanding what you were getting at.

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.

On the surface this sounds logical.
However, on the belief that we exist within a creation = "Therefore a Creator-GOD" there has been no science done which provides any of us with the right to premise. ["Therefore a Creator-GOD"]
Thus, promoting beliefs in ideas of Creator-GODs is cart before the horse stuff.
However, if one proceeds in a horse before the cart manner, the focus is on the idea that we exist within a creation, we can then look for evidence within the reality experience we call 'The Universe" and see what can be found therein to support the notion that the reality experience is a creation.

Plenty fair. Lacking specific examples, I see no problem at all with this approach.

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.

Thanks for saying so. We share in the intrigue.
For me, the notion certainly appears to be true re the evidence - even through the Message Generating Process under development - [Today's GM] is certainly understandable enough and deals with this subject in more detail.

As I understand it, IF there is a "Cosmic Mind" involved with the creation of our Universe, scientists will eventually [naturally] discover this just by continuing to do science.
In the meantime I do my own science, and am satisfied with the results so far.
Going off of the readership stats so far, there appears to be a consistent reader-interest where I post the GMs - here, and in other internet forums...

I gotta fess it, those messages leave me lost as a cow at a square dance. I chalk that up to my lack of formal education.

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

My position is that - in the last 24 hours - I have decided that am done with interacting with atheists and being distracted by their statements of opinion re the Question of GOD...except for the exception of JK because you have consistently shown a willingness to remain open minded about the idea of a "Cosmic Mind" and it is undeniable that such a Mind - if it truly exists - could be referred to as a "GOD'.
In all my years of interacting with atheists, I have never had the pleasure and - like I say - After years of subjection to atheist opinions, I have had enough of it.

In considering we're here on this site to debate theses issues, I do find it odd that some'd prefer not to be bothered with at least trying to understand the other guy. Especially where, such as you, they make compelling arguments, up to and including wit and wisdom, laughter and medicine.

Of course, I don't frequent TD&D, but even there, I find me a jewel now and then.

As an amateur, a wanna-be scientist, maybe I rely too much on science in support of my own world view.

What will you do if/when science discovers that we actually do exist within a creation?

Accept my new reality. I ain't so proud to think I've got all this right, all by myself

I submit though, that cracking open the bible ain't the way to fix that.

That is an irrelevant opinion to me, because - as you know - I am not a Theist or an Atheist because I see no logic in having an opinion on GOD until it can be established that we exist within a creation.

I plow that under, and deny I ever said it, as relates to your position.

The closest I come to that, is with the notion that there MAY be a "Cosmic Mind" and if such can be identified in ANY religious script, I am open [of mind] to investigating that.

Otherwise - since I am not advocating folk need to do that, it is not an issue I have to answer to.

I second the notion.

Thanks for you feedback John.

And thank you, my friend, for understanding the limits of my abilities, and patiently explaining to me em

[Tcg]

Non theists rely on science, on observable facts. Theists use science when they think it supports their interpretations of their favorite religious books. When objective observation contradicts the claims of their favorite religion, they suddenly reject or question science. Their disingenuousness and lack of principle is noted.

As for the "Cosmic Mind..."

I think I get the contrast you are presenting, but not all nontheists rely on science, on observable facts. Some have simply never heard of any god concepts. Others may lack belief for various other reasons. I have very little training in science and didn't really rely on it when I started down the path that led to atheism. I simply examined the claims for theism and found them devoid of value.

ETA: Well, wait a minute, I have to backtrack on that somewhat. I did utilize what I suppose could be classified as scientific understanding by realizing that the idea of a global flood was untenable based on the distribution of animals around the world and most specifically the Pine Barrens tree frog which lives only in three isolated spots in the U.S. That of course was only one small piece of the deconversion pie.


Tcg

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[Diogenes]

[The Tanager]

[William]