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?

[The Tanager]

If Im understanding correctly, then you should be able to falsify the statement: "physical observation is required to distinguish something from being imaginary or non-existent." How would you go about doing that in the general case?

Being self-defeating is the way to falsify the statement in the general sense. Your statement breaks its own rule. If physical observation is required, then since your statement has no physical observation behind it, one should think it is imaginary. Therefore, physical observation isnt required to distinguish something from being imaginary or non-existent. In some cases it could distinguish such things, but not in every case.

For instance, distinguishing whether X (the chocolate bar in my office drawer) is real or imaginary?

This is not a general case, but a specific one. Being a physical phenomena, physical observation is a great way towards distinguishing the reality of the chocolate bar.

[Technically, one would need to rule out hallucinations as well as make philosophical arguments about the reliability of our senses to show one is rational in the belief the chocolate bar is there (unless you have health reasons to worry about, I hope for your sake you get to enjoy its goodness). Now, Im not saying hallucinations are more likely the case or that I dont think our senses are reliable indicators of truth, just noting that even this goes beyond mere physical observation.]

Read a bit more carefully, there's nothing in brunumb's comment...that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.

From brunumbs post I quoted at the top here, that doesnt seem to me to be the case, but I welcome any clarifications from brunumb.

It just merely notes that in the absence of observing such, gods and the imaginary look a lot alike.

So, non-natural things and imaginary things share the characteristic of not having physical traits. Sure. But if one then concludes that, therefore, non-natural things are imaginary things, they would be irrational.

And when philosophical reasons are given for establishing the existence of these non-natural things (which Ive given), those should be addressed, rather than talking about how they arent physical observations.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.

Beats me. I only know if I don't take my meds, I end up to getting me a random color of jello every afternoon at 2, except on Sunday, then it's ice cream.

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for minds, then are they indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent?

OK, so you put forth that minds might not exist. Now what? I'm not seeing the purpose of your words.

viewtopic.php?p=1090381#p1090381

Sorry, I'm still confused...
You suggested that perhaps there is no such thing as a mind (by pointing out how it is indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent). Ohhhh kayyyy? Now what is the purpose of suggesting such a thing?

I read your words and have come away with the idea that the gods and minds might not be real. Where should this thinking lead us is what I'm wondering.

To be honest, it is more than enough to me, that at least one atheist understood what I wrote and replied as much.

I am not concerned with dedicating time to re-explain in other words, to those who don't get it.

I'm not an atheist and I have lost interest in whatever it was you were trying to relay with the attitude on display. Respect as well...
Be well...

[JoeyKnothead]

Perhaps Im misunderstanding what you mean by "the bounds of the Kalam," but the Kalam does not allow for the space-time universe to have always existed.

While it does nothing to show such is the case, and excuses its god of any responsibility to hold to the same requirement.

It absolutely does show why the space-time universe had a beginning. There are two philosophical arguments given to back it up, which Ive summarized in this thread. The best scientific theories currently seem...

To seem. Those same scientists also propose there was a singularity from which the big bang arose.
(snip remainder of that bit)

This leads to the conclusion of a non-natural cause to all of nature. Its logically impossible for the cause of all of nature to be natural itself. To then say the non-natural cause must be treated like natural things is obviously irrational. Of course a non-natural thing isnt going to be natural.

You're insisting the universe has a cause beyond itself, while excluding that cause - oh so sentient, and oh so powerful - from the same requirement.

From where comes this sentience, and this power?

I've pointed out the flaws repeatedly across a multiple of posts now.

That you reject such is a condition I ain't apt to fix. I post now so the observer new to these notions can see those flaws for what they are

And Ive responded every time with the support behind my conclusions and the flaws with your critiques.

You've presented, at best, speculation.

We simply can't say if the universe is non/eternal.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
So, non-natural things and imaginary things share the characteristic of not having physical traits. Sure. But if one then concludes that, therefore, non-natural things are imaginary things, they would be irrational.

Just as irrational as thinking imaginary things're real.

And when philosophical reasons are given for establishing the existence of these non-natural things (which Ive given), those should be addressed, rather than talking about how they arent physical observations.

If you could produce your god for all to observe, you wouldn't be so confused twixt philosophy and fact.

And that fact is that your arguments in this matter are purely speculative, when they ain't illogical or irrational.

You've got no more claim to truth than the Bigfoot bunch.

[The Tanager]

To seem. Those same scientists also propose there was a singularity from which the big bang arose.

The theories that assert the big bang as the beginning assert a beginning to the space-time universe. Many of the theories that assert a prior state still end up requiring a beginning to the space-time universe as a whole. Some theories that assert an eternal existence have been abandoned. Some theories that assert an eternal existence are still being pursued, but are based on lots of speculation.

None of these theories are close to showing the space-time universe is likely to be eternal. And while many naturalistic scientists take the faith position that someday a theory will do so, the philosophical arguments Ive shared show that such faith (at best) is the least rational position to take.

You're insisting the universe has a cause beyond itself, while excluding that cause - oh so sentient, and oh so powerful - from the same requirement.

From where comes this sentience, and this power?

Yes, because I want to be logical. The universe is shown to have a cause beyond itself by its very own nature. The universes nature is what leads me to insist it has a cause beyond itself. The nature of the thing leads to it needing a cause.

The cause of the universe has a different nature and, thus, logically, should not be held to the same requirement. If there is a different argument that shows it needs a cause, then show it. Dont treat things with different natures as though they dont have different natures.

Ive shared why I think, logically, something must exist uncaused. Its a much better option than infinite regression and self-causation. That something must have the power to (at least ultimately) cause the space-time universe. And as an eternal thing creating a temporal effect, it must be personal, i.e., have sentience. As an eternal being these characteristics would be eternally existent, not sourced in something else. It is the source of everything else.

So, non-natural things and imaginary things share the characteristic of not having physical traits. Sure. But if one then concludes that, therefore, non-natural things are imaginary things, they would be irrational.

Just as irrational as thinking imaginary things're real.

Yes!

If you could produce your god for all to observe, you wouldn't be so confused twixt philosophy and fact.

And that fact is that your arguments in this matter are purely speculative, when they ain't illogical or irrational.

You've got no more claim to truth than the Bigfoot bunch.

If you want to rationally move this discussion forward, then deal with the reasoning instead of just sharing your conclusions over and over.

[JoeyKnothead]

On a personal note, I preciate The Tanager's patient willingness to engage, and the polite manner in doing so. It's a good lesson in manners for me, who ain't me got so much, the social graces...

To seem. Those same scientists also propose there was a singularity from which the big bang arose.

The theories that assert the big bang as the beginning assert a beginning to the space-time universe. Many of the theories that assert a prior state still end up requiring a beginning to the space-time universe as a whole. Some theories that assert an eternal existence have been abandoned. Some theories that assert an eternal existence are still being pursued, but are based on lots of speculation.

My point is that we dont know the conditions prior to the big bang, and as you point out, a multiple of hypotheses've presented in this regard.

None of these theories are close to showing the space-time universe is likely to be eternal. And while many naturalistic scientists take the faith position that someday a theory will do so, the philosophical arguments Ive shared show that such faith (at best) is the least rational position to take.

"Likely" proves nothing either way.

Thus, the most rational position to take in this matter is, "I don't know".

It's not rational to propose such as the Kalam cosmological argument as "truth". Specifically because it relies on premises that can't be shown to be truth. (Where one might propose a logical argument means the conclusion's true)

You're insisting the universe has a cause beyond itself, while excluding that cause - oh so sentient, and oh so powerful - from the same requirement.

From where comes this sentience, and this power?

Yes, because I want to be logical.
...

But you're only being 'logical' within the box of your 'logical' argument.

We simply have no way of knowing how the universe came to be, or if it is or ain't it eternal.

The universe is shown to have a cause beyond itself by its very own nature. The universes nature is what leads me to insist it has a cause beyond itself. The nature of the thing leads to it needing a cause.

The big bang gives the appearance of expansion, while not showing from what, or for how long that what existed prior to the expansion.

The cause of the universe has a different nature and, thus, logically, should not be held to the same requirement. If there is a different argument that shows it needs a cause, then show it. Dont treat things with different natures as though they dont have different natures.

No, there's an appearance of expansion that tells us nothing about some "different nature", where that different nature is the universe in a prior, unobserved state.

Ive shared why I think, logically, something must exist uncaused. Its a much better option than infinite regression and self-causation. That something must have the power to (at least ultimately) cause the space-time universe. And as an eternal thing creating a temporal effect, it must be personal, i.e., have sentience. As an eternal being these characteristics would be eternally existent, not sourced in something else. It is the source of everything else.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, can show us sentience occurred eternally, much less prior to the universe. The best we can do is to say we have sentience here within the universe. As well, we can only say sentience is observed in at best several animal species. From this, the most logical answer to the KCA is, "I don't know, and I'm sentient enough to know I don't". (No slur there, just an emphasizing)

So, non-natural things and imaginary things share the characteristic of not having physical traits. Sure. But if one then concludes that, therefore, non-natural things are imaginary things, they would be irrational.

Just as irrational as thinking imaginary things're real.

Yes!

Great, now you'll quit telling about how a god you can't show exists did him a thing ya can't show he did.

Cause your argument relies on us imagining what conditions were prior to the apparent expansion of the universe.

If you could produce your god for all to observe, you wouldn't be so confused twixt philosophy and fact.

And that fact is that your arguments in this matter are purely speculative, when they ain't illogical or irrational.

You've got no more claim to truth than the Bigfoot bunch.

If you want to rationally move this discussion forward, then deal with the reasoning instead of just sharing your conclusions over and over.

My conclusions're based on your faulty reasoning.

Let's tell it again...

We don't know if the universe has existed eternally, or not.

We don't know how a sentient entity could exist prior to our observation that sentience is only ever found in stuff that came after the apparent expansion of the universe, and / or in animals we're comfortable to say didn't exist prior, either.

'Logical' arguments're bound to the box in which they're made.

From that, I contend, the most rational, the most truthful answer to arguments regarding any origin or cause of the universe is, "Beats me".


So it's cool to say such as, "Within the confines of the KCA, within the limited amount of answers allowed, I'd like to introduce y'all to a god who needs him no introduction." But we must remember that such is only borne of an argument whose premises're unproven, and so whose conclusions must be tempered by the warm waters of rational thought.

[The Tanager]

"Likely" proves nothing either way.

Thus, the most rational position to take in this matter is, "I don't know".

Having certainty/proof as the standard is not rational. To live by that standard is to not make any choices in life besides when doing your sums.

But you're only being 'logical' within the box of your 'logical' argument.

We simply have no way of knowing how the universe came to be, or if it is or ain't it eternal.

No, within the box of logic.

The universe is shown to have a cause beyond itself by its very own nature. The universes nature is what leads me to insist it has a cause beyond itself. The nature of the thing leads to it needing a cause.

The big bang gives the appearance of expansion, while not showing from what, or for how long that what existed prior to the expansion.

I said the "universe" not the state of the universe after the big bang.

No, there's an appearance of expansion that tells us nothing about some "different nature", where that different nature is the universe in a prior, unobserved state.

Its still natural, so its not different in that way. The physicality/materiality are still there to apply logic to, which the argument does.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, can show us sentience occurred eternally, much less prior to the universe. The best we can do is to say we have sentience here within the universe. As well, we can only say sentience is observed in at best several animal species. From this, the most logical answer to the KCA is, "I don't know, and I'm sentient enough to know I don't". (No slur there, just an emphasizing)

To move the discussion forward you need to show why you think this is true instead of just stating it cant be done. The argument rationally leads to the conclusion it does, so refute the actual argument.

Great, now you'll quit telling about how a god you can't show exists did him a thing ya can't show he did.

Cause your argument relies on us imagining what conditions were prior to the apparent expansion of the universe.

No, the argument doesnt rely on that at all. It relies on us treating spatial-temporal stuff as though its spatial-temporal stuff.

[JoeyKnothead]

"Likely" proves nothing either way.
Thus, the most rational position to take in this matter is, "I don't know".

Having certainty/proof as the standard is not rational. To live by that standard is to not make any choices in life besides when doing your sums.

Notice, I specifically said "in this matter", the KCA.

But you're only being 'logical' within the box of your 'logical' argument.

We simply have no way of knowing how the universe came to be, or if it is or ain't it eternal.

No, within the box of logic.

No, yes?

Within the KCA we're offered assumptions that can't be shown to be truthful. We're told the universe has a cause, We're told that unproven assumption, then lo and behold, we're told that cause is a sentient, thinking entity capable of creating an entire universe on, I -ahem- assume is thought alone. No prints, no permits, no subcontractors, no unions, just thought alone.

Not only is this 'cause' illogical, but the fact it's borne of assumption, of speculation, should caution us all about the merits of this aledgedly 'logical' argument.

The universe is shown to have a cause beyond itself by its very own nature. The universes nature is what leads me to insist it has a cause beyond itself. The nature of the thing leads to it needing a cause.

The big bang gives the appearance of expansion, while not showing from what, or for how long that what existed prior to the expansion.

I said the "universe" not the state of the universe after the big bang.

Then we've confirmed your argument, at its core, is built from speculation.

Unless you have some means for us all to confirm the state of the universe prior to expansion?

No, there's an appearance of expansion that tells us nothing about some "different nature", where that different nature is the universe in a prior, unobserved state.

Its still natural, so its not different in that way. The physicality/materiality are still there to apply logic to, which the argument does.

You still haven't shown that a physical / material universe must be the product of creation.

Here you're positing a cause you can't show is even necessary, much less to exist with the properties/s you propose.

If you can assert a god caused the universe, but needs himself no cause, and is therefore eternal, then I can, with equal validity propose it's actually the universe that's always existed.

You're just adding an extra, unsupported, unevidenced step.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, can show us sentience occurred eternally, much less prior to the universe. The best we can do is to say we have sentience here within the universe. As well, we can only say sentience is observed in at best several animal species. From this, the most logical answer to the KCA is, "I don't know, and I'm sentient enough to know I don't". (No slur there, just an emphasizing)

To move the discussion forward you need to show why you think this is true instead of just stating it cant be done. The argument rationally leads to the conclusion it does, so refute the actual argument.

There's no "to move the discussion forward" when you've anchored your arguments to the past.

The fact, the fact of this matter is the KCA will only ever be shown to be a mental exercise, at best. It's assumptions're not shown to be truth, but to be speculation.

Therefore what 'logic' may be derived therefrom can't be shown to be truth.

Rendering the most rational approach to that argument then, is to declare, "I don't know".

Great, now you'll quit telling about how a god you can't show exists did him a thing ya can't show he did.

Cause your argument relies on us imagining what conditions were prior to the apparent expansion of the universe.

No, the argument doesnt rely on that at all. It relies on us treating spatial-temporal stuff as though its spatial-temporal stuff.

And speculation as though it's truth.

[The Tanager]

Notice, I specifically said "in this matter", the KCA.

What makes the KCA different? Why must one have certainty/proof in this matter, but not others?

Within the KCA we're offered assumptions that can't be shown to be truthful. We're told the universe has a cause, We're told that unproven assumption, then lo and behold, we're told that cause is a sentient, thinking entity capable of creating an entire universe on, I -ahem- assume is thought alone. No prints, no permits, no subcontractors, no unions, just thought alone.

Not only is this 'cause' illogical, but the fact it's borne of assumption, of speculation, should caution us all about the merits of this aledgedly 'logical' argument.

You keep saying its assumptions, but Ive offered reasoning, which you dont address. Im here if you want to move the discussion forward.

[JoeyKnothead]

Notice, I specifically said "in this matter", the KCA.

What makes the KCA different? Why must one have certainty/proof in this matter, but not others?

As your argument is presented within the topic "Apologist explains how to get prayer answered", I seek to ensure folks, especially those down on their luck, don't confuse religious propaganda with truth. There's folks who throw money at preachers who make these sorts of unproven promises.

Beyond that, your fretting why I'd seek certainty in this matter and not others is a bit of a gooficity.

If you can't provide certainty for your claims, well there we go. It doesn't matter if there's no certainty left to be had elsewhere, but where is the certainty in your claims.

You keep saying its assumptions, but Ive offered reasoning, which you dont address. Im here if you want to move the discussion forward.

And I've repeatedly pointed out those assumptions, and explained the faults therein. Ignoring this fact and trying to imply I ain't, is not an argument, it's a refusal to accept reality. As well, we need not rely on your faulty reasoning / explanations for those assumptions, to see when assumptions're occurring - unless it is, only you, of all the people, have that singular ability.

I dare say, if you wanna move your thinking forward, you'll go back and try to understand just where you're doing your assuming and the many times I've pointed it out.