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]

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.

Where I propose your question steers folks, if unintionaly, onto an answer, a "truth", that can't be shown to be true.

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.

So you reject a rational answer for a comforting answer.

“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.

But you set out assuming the universe was created, without ever showing it couldn't have existed, like your proposed god answer, eternally.

You're placing at least one too many unwarranted, unfounded assumptions into it.

Where've you shown the universe ain't uncaused?

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.

Either way, you excuse your god from the restrictions you place on the universe.

We simply don't know if the universe, like your god proposal, was uncaused.

As to showing why I think the universe is uncaused, I’ve done it in this thread in relation to the Kalam.

Kalam's been broken so many times, for the same reasons. It seeks to excuse the proposed god from the restrictions it places on the universe.

That Kalam argument is not dependent on the Big Bang being the beginning or there being a prior state of the universe.

It proposes the universe didn't have a prior state, in that it declares the universe to've been created.

If everything that exists has a cause, and God exists, then by that statement, God must also have had a cause.

Yes, and that doesn’t impact the Kalam at all. The philosophical arguments for the space-time universe having a beginning remain.

You're simply not gonna be able to logically, or rationally, excuse your argument from it's own premise.

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.

What's magic here, is your declaring your god is immune to the restrictions you place on the universe.

You can try to dance around that with any rhetorical tool in the box, but the fact remains you're attempting to excuse your god from the 'logic' you're trying to invoke.

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.

My 'scientism' has little, to nothing to do with your abject failure in understanding the logic invoked by your own 'logical' argument.

We see the universe. If, by your 'logic', we're to declare something can be uncaused, then we should stop here. Instead, you wish to invoke a god that you can't show exists, in order to further your theistic aims.

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.

I've told you why your argument fails, and you continue to invoke special pleading to excuse your argument from its illogic.

We observer the universe. We don't observe gods.

If we're to use your 'logic', then the most obvious, most logical and rational answer, is that the universe is uncaused.

[quote=JoeyKnotheadI 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.
[/quote]
That ain't my fault.

Your argument is one of declaring that which can't be shown to exist, exists, uncaused, unseen.

My argument is that if we apply your 'logic', it's most rational to conclude the universe is uncaused, eternal, and all such as that.

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.

I never claimed science is the only reliable way to knowledge, so have no need to fret its failure to support your argument.

What I do claim is that you impose rules on the universe that you ignore when proposing your god as its cause.

[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]

Science simply does not mention god. But you seem obsessed with calling it 'atheistic,' in your own words, "dozens of times."

That’s what I’ve been trying to clarify. I’m not calling science atheistic. I’m distinguishing an atheistic evolutionary account from a theistic evolutionary account. Those are identical in their scientific beliefs. They are different philosophical frameworks within which their identical evolutionary beliefs are placed and made sense of.

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.

Science looks for truth via observable physical/natural/material evidence. As a non-physical/supernatural/immaterial entity, there could never be anything for science to report on God. One has to bring philosophical arguments to bear with the science to get to the non-physical/supernatural/immaterial or a belief that no such things exist.

You write as if science is anti god. It is not. Science is not anti god any more than it is anti fairies.

In no way do I write as if science is anti-God. I don’t believe it is. I love science. I think it is extremely important and informative of our reality.

[The Tanager]

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.

So you reject a rational answer for a comforting answer.

Not at all. I’ve given reasons I think those are irrational answers for the current question under discussion. I’m open to moving that discussion forward, if you want to respond to those reasons.

But you set out assuming the universe was created, without ever showing it couldn't have existed, like your proposed god answer, eternally.

You're placing at least one too many unwarranted, unfounded assumptions into it.

I haven’t assumed anything. I’ve given support for various premises that lead to the conclusion. If you think otherwise, it would be helpful for you to point to the exact premise that you think has only been assumed and share why my reasons don’t change that.

Either way, you excuse your god from the restrictions you place on the universe.

We simply don't know if the universe, like your god proposal, was uncaused.

No, I’ve given actual reasons in this thread to both think (1) the universe was caused and (2) that a personal being as the cause is the most rational conclusion.

Kalam's been broken so many times, for the same reasons. It seeks to excuse the proposed god from the restrictions it places on the universe.

I’ve shared the reasons. To move the discussion forward rationally, share the reasons that “break” the Kalam and I’ll discuss them. To respond to the reasons given with simply "oh, that's been refuted before" is entirely unhelpful and unsupported.

It proposes the universe didn't have a prior state, in that it declares the universe to've been created.

The space-time universe doesn’t have a prior state. That doesn't mean the post big bang state of the space-time universe doesn't have a prior state.

If everything that exists has a cause, and God exists, then by that statement, God must also have had a cause.

I agree. But if you think that the first part of your conditional statement is in the Kalam, then you are simply mistaken. I didn’t use “everything that exists has a cause” as a premise. That’s never been the premise in the traditional philosophical discussion (for the Kalam or the Leibnizian cosmological argument, but perhaps the confusion comes in conflating the two into something neither say). The first premise reads “everything that begins to exist has a cause.

You're simply not gonna be able to logically, or rationally, excuse your argument from it's own premise.

Which premise am I excusing it from?

What's magic here, is your declaring your god is immune to the restrictions you place on the universe.

Is it magic to say that fish are immune to a logical restriction placed on land animals? Do they have to have lungs to breathe oxygen? Different kinds of entities have different logical restrictions to consider. A physical entity’s physical restrictions logically could not carry over to something non-physical. That’s not magic.

We see the universe. If, by your 'logic', we're to declare something can be uncaused, then we should stop here. Instead, you wish to invoke a god that you can't show exists, in order to further your theistic aims.

What about my logic should lead to stopping at declaring there is something uncaused?

I've told you why your argument fails, and you continue to invoke special pleading to excuse your argument from its illogic.

We observer the universe. We don't observe gods.

If we're to use your 'logic', then the most obvious, most logical and rational answer, is that the universe is uncaused.

No, I’m invoking the bankruptcy of physical observation as a valid test of truth in this area. The cause of all physical things could not be physical. That’s irrational. To then say, yeah, but we can’t physically observe the cause, so it doesn’t exist keeps us in irrationality. Of course, we couldn’t physically observe something non-physical.

I 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.

That ain't my fault.

Your argument is one of declaring that which can't be shown to exist, exists, uncaused, unseen.

My argument is that if we apply your 'logic', it's most rational to conclude the universe is uncaused, eternal, and all such as that.

It absolutely is your fault if you ask science to do what it cannot do.

[Diogenes]

Science simply does not mention god. But you seem obsessed with calling it 'atheistic,' in your own words, "dozens of times."

That’s what I’ve been trying to clarify. I’m not calling science atheistic. I’m distinguishing an atheistic evolutionary account from a theistic evolutionary account. Those are identical in their scientific beliefs.
....

There is no such thing as a scientific "theistic evolutionary account." It does not exist as a scientific theory, but a theological one. "Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

"Theistic evolution" is a contradiction in terms because it adds "magic" to a scientific, observable process.
Or perhaps you can find this make-believe thing in a scientific journal? Exactly how does a god intervene in a natural phenomena? Does he alter chromosomes? Gene splice? And why would he need to? What part of this natural process did 'god' do? ... and continues to do? Evolution continues constantly. Why would this 'god' continue to change "his creation?"

You certainly can believe in God and believe in science, but I'm puzzled by the role this god plays in nature. Historically the concept of a god was used to cover the areas of nature we did not understand. 'He' was given credit for thunder and lightning, for storms, for life itself, for next year's crop. We can now explain much of this without resort to magical, imaginary beings.

[The Tanager]

There is no such thing as a scientific "theistic evolutionary account." It does not exist as a scientific theory, but a theological one. "Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory."

I agree with you. Seriously. I agree with you. There is also no such thing as a scientific “atheistic evolutionary account”. Both the atheistic evolutionary account and the theistic evolutionary account are philosophical declarations, not scientific theories. They share in declaring the scientific theory of evolution.

"Theistic evolution" is a contradiction in terms because it adds "magic" to a scientific, observable process.

No, it’s not a contradiction in terms. It doesn’t add “magic” to a scientific, observable process. It says there is a God behind that scientific, observable process. Science only tells us what the process is, not if there is anything else behind it or not.

Or perhaps you can find this make-believe thing in a scientific journal? Exactly how does a god intervene in a natural phenomena? Does he alter chromosomes? Gene splice? And why would he need to? What part of this natural process did 'god' do? ... and continues to do? Evolution continues constantly. Why would this 'god' continue to change "his creation?"

Theistic evolution does not require that God intervenes in the natural phenomena that He designed and sustains in existence. God would have set all the rules up. So, God did all of the natural process.

This does not mean that God could not have intervened in certain situations (or that God did). One possible intervention would be to choose a human species and provide them with rationality or personhood. Such a thing seems unlikely to evolve naturally.

Historically the concept of a god was used to cover the areas of nature we did not understand. 'He' was given credit for thunder and lightning, for storms, for life itself, for next year's crop. We can now explain much of this without resort to magical, imaginary beings.

Historically, some people used the concept of God in that way. Not all did. Whether the existence of all of this can be explained (in the sense of being grounded, not the types of explanations you highlighted) without resorting to God is a further philosophical debate.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #577]

The space-time universe doesn’t have a prior state.

Your statement is confusing.
On what grounds do you opinion that the spacetime Universe "doesn't have a prior state"?

It appears from the evidence collected so far, that the STU is in a constant state of moving from a prior state to another, related state, re the physics of it.

It simply isn't known because it hasn't been observed, that the STU did or did not have a prior state.
My opinion is that it must have, because otherwise we only have 'magic' and that is no great argument, because some thing [the STU in this case] cannot derive from no thing.

That doesn't mean the post big bang state of the space-time universe doesn't have a prior state.

You seem to be saying that this "post big bang state of the space-time universe" could have had a prior state - which appears to contradict your first [unsupported] statement of opinion that the space-time universe doesn’t have a prior state.

Could have or doesn't have...that is the question...