What's the Point of Prayer?

[POI]

In regards to the following verses -- Matthew 7:7, Matthew 21:22, Mark 11:24, John 14:13-14, John 16:23....

What do they really mean? I've debated many theists, and get a whole mess of conflicting answers. It will likely be no surprise if that continues here. After some thought, here are some findings...

1. All prayer is pointless, as any "answered prayer" would merely mean, <at best>, that it already aligned with God's will. Why? Because you cannot make God change His will. But this seems to go against all the verses listed above.

2. Ignore the above! God answers all prayer with a (yes, no, or later). His answer, of course, would be "no" if you are asking God to commit a 'sin.' But if this option is the case, I guess he will always say no to the requests of restoring lost limbs, reversing cerebral palsy, and downs syndrome. Why? Because they will die with these conditions, which means they remained unfulfilled until natural death. But this seems to go against all the verses listed above, as there really exists no such caveats....?

3. Ignore choices 1. and 2.! Prayer is only meant for giving thanks, other. God is not a slot machine! But this seems to go against all the verses listed above.

I'm sure there exists a plethora of other explanations........ You get the gist....

For Debate:

What is the point of prayer? I guess we can start here, and see where this goes....

[brunumb]

To ask is to ask. You can ask for anything you want. A new car, a wife, health, etc. If God decided to grace you with it from his eternal act, then he does. If it is not within his will to answer your, then he does not. If you never ask, then you never receive anything.

I get exactly the same thing happening with my pet rock. Go figure.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40]

I have to reiterate that what you believe counts for nothing. Dismissing prayers answered for other gods, or prayers answered to your god, even in different denominations, all count and you have no logical case to dismiss them just because they don't fit your beliefs.

This makes me believe that you did not afford me the courtesy of reading my response that you indeed quoted. Here it is again.

It sounds like this question assumes God only answers Christians. If any prayer is actually answered by God then all glory goes to God, so the answer is other.

I also explain in the post that God can answer prayers of anyone of any religion or non-religion for he answered Paul who persecuted Christians. We cannot earn the Grace of God. It is free to all who seek, however they seek, even in ignorance.

All we are getting here is the way it works naturally with no particular god there, but someone claiming there is a particular god there. You telling me that you don't understand how this appears to anyone not already brainwashed into a particular religion? I'm not asking you to convert, or even admit that it is so and you are just appealing to Faith, but at least you must understand that logically there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in the god -claim of Christianity.


[Replying to POI in post #50]

Yeah....obviously despite the clumsy analogy, Aquinas for God is not talking of something demonstrable like a new car or a new leg or a couple of thou. in the bank with no apparent explanation, but of something that is indistinguishable from human imagination, or at least the warm fuzzies like 'grace'. I recall that he has already refuted himself by saying that everyone gets it of all religions. It is the epitome of a collapsed apologetic

The world would look the same without a god
it is the same for people of all religions or none
it is purely faith claim with no demonstrable substance.

Ladies and gentleman, such a faith -based apologetic position is not worthy of the time.

cue: 'not arguin', just tellin'. I recall that from the early days on my former board; people saying they didn't want to debate, just share their faith with us. Despite otseng memorably slapping me down for calling this 'preaching' that is absolutely what that is. Tellin' us about their beliefs without (good) (1) evidence

(1) sorry, there's always something equally memorably, an opponent on the former board argued that Bad (Invalid or false) evidence was still 'evidence'.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

All we are getting here is the way it works naturally with no particular god there, but someone claiming there is a particular god there. You telling me that you don't understand how this appears to anyone not already brainwashed into a particular religion? I'm not asking you to convert, or even admit that it is so and you are just appealing to Faith, but at least you must understand that logically there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in the god -claim of Christianity.

Logic can get you to God, but to Christianity, probably not. I can think of a way reasoning could get one to Christianity. If Lee Stroble is telling the truth about his conversion, then reasoning is how he became a Christian.

Yeah....obviously despite the clumsy analogy, Aquinas for God is not talking of something demonstrable like a new car or a new leg or a couple of thou. in the bank with no apparent explanation, but of something that is indistinguishable from human imagination, or at least the warm fuzzies like 'grace'. I recall that he has already refuted himself by saying that everyone gets it of all religions. It is the epitome of a collapsed apologetic

I do not agree with that at all. There are recorded cases of actual miracles from prayer, I personally have witnessed answers to prayer that defy any natural explanation. Concerning all religions I said that God can and has answered anyone he wishes. His grace is not earned by being Catholic. That doesn't mean that Catholics do not experience more miracles.

The world would look the same without a god

If you think you can demonstrate this, then do so, or maybe respond to my thread where I show otherwise. - viewtopic.php?t=39722

it is purely faith claim with no demonstrable substance.

This is also incorrect. You haven't demonstrated that prayer is purely a faith claim. Prayer being answered is not a scientific claim, true, because something metaphysical is taking place. You assume if it is not science then it is not real, which you will not be able to demonstrate. We need a method for trying to measure the metaphysical response in our world.

We could try to analyze eye-witness accounts, for example. Aquinas once needed to give a speech, but he grew a new tooth, a double tooth. It affected how he talked, so he was going to have to postpone the speech. Instead, he took it to prayer. He prayed and prayed. The tooth fell out causing no pain and he was able to deliver his speech.

Supposing he did not lie, and it is very unlikely he would have, what would be the natural explanation? Double teeth don't just fall out, especially when they are new.

I find it odd you think you accomplished some victory here. It is like you are raising your own hand at the end of a boxing match. Bravo, I guess?

[POI]

There are recorded cases of actual miracles from prayer, I personally have witnessed answers to prayer that defy any natural explanation.

Example please?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

All we are getting here is the way it works naturally with no particular god there, but someone claiming there is a particular god there. You telling me that you don't understand how this appears to anyone not already brainwashed into a particular religion? I'm not asking you to convert, or even admit that it is so and you are just appealing to Faith, but at least you must understand that logically there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in the god -claim of Christianity.

Logic can get you to God, but to Christianity, probably not. I can think of a way reasoning could get one to Christianity. If Lee Stroble is telling the truth about his conversion, then reasoning is how he became a Christian.

Yeah....obviously despite the clumsy analogy, Aquinas for God is not talking of something demonstrable like a new car or a new leg or a couple of thou. in the bank with no apparent explanation, but of something that is indistinguishable from human imagination, or at least the warm fuzzies like 'grace'. I recall that he has already refuted himself by saying that everyone gets it of all religions. It is the epitome of a collapsed apologetic

I do not agree with that at all. There are recorded cases of actual miracles from prayer, I personally have witnessed answers to prayer that defy any natural explanation. Concerning all religions I said that God can and has answered anyone he wishes. His grace is not earned by being Catholic. That doesn't mean that Catholics do not experience more miracles.

The world would look the same without a god

If you think you can demonstrate this, then do so, or maybe respond to my thread where I show otherwise. - viewtopic.php?t=39722

it is purely faith claim with no demonstrable substance.

This is also incorrect. You haven't demonstrated that prayer is purely a faith claim. Prayer being answered is not a scientific claim, true, because something metaphysical is taking place. You assume if it is not science then it is not real, which you will not be able to demonstrate. We need a method for trying to measure the metaphysical response in our world.

We could try to analyze eye-witness accounts, for example. Aquinas once needed to give a speech, but he grew a new tooth, a double tooth. It affected how he talked, so he was going to have to postpone the speech. Instead, he took it to prayer. He prayed and prayed. The tooth fell out causing no pain and he was able to deliver his speech.

Supposing he did not lie, and it is very unlikely he would have, what would be the natural explanation? Double teeth don't just fall out, especially when they are new.

I find it odd you think you accomplished some victory here. It is like you are raising your own hand at the end of a boxing match. Bravo, I guess?

Chum, you don't need to ask me to prove my case - you already admitted it with the bit about the same thing happens in other religions. One Could ascribe that to a god of no particular religion but there is no valid claim to ascribe it to a god of a particular religion only that you have Faith that it is so. But logically since it works just as well with no god, that is a perfectly valid and more logical position. That's a win on points at least.

You appear to be trying to back up Faith (as usually happens) with Evidence of prayers being answered. I have had a miraculous answer to a need in my own life, but I was an atheist; I didn't pray. Thus there is no reason to ascribe any such lucky coincidences (and let's face it, anecdotal stories of 'inexplicable' answers to prayers cannot be accepted at face value) to some sorta god, and (as you said yourself) not to any particular god, anyway. I don't claim I won the boxing match, but you definitely lose.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #52]

All we are getting here is the way it works naturally with no particular god there, but someone claiming there is a particular god there. You telling me that you don't understand how this appears to anyone not already brainwashed into a particular religion? I'm not asking you to convert, or even admit that it is so and you are just appealing to Faith, but at least you must understand that logically there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in the god -claim of Christianity.

Logic can get you to God, but to Christianity, probably not. I can think of a way reasoning could get one to Christianity. If Lee Stroble is telling the truth about his conversion, then reasoning is how he became a Christian.

Yeah....obviously despite the clumsy analogy, Aquinas for God is not talking of something demonstrable like a new car or a new leg or a couple of thou. in the bank with no apparent explanation, but of something that is indistinguishable from human imagination, or at least the warm fuzzies like 'grace'. I recall that he has already refuted himself by saying that everyone gets it of all religions. It is the epitome of a collapsed apologetic

I do not agree with that at all. There are recorded cases of actual miracles from prayer, I personally have witnessed answers to prayer that defy any natural explanation. Concerning all religions I said that God can and has answered anyone he wishes. His grace is not earned by being Catholic. That doesn't mean that Catholics do not experience more miracles.

The world would look the same without a god

If you think you can demonstrate this, then do so, or maybe respond to my thread where I show otherwise. - viewtopic.php?t=39722

it is purely faith claim with no demonstrable substance.

This is also incorrect. You haven't demonstrated that prayer is purely a faith claim. Prayer being answered is not a scientific claim, true, because something metaphysical is taking place. You assume if it is not science then it is not real, which you will not be able to demonstrate. We need a method for trying to measure the metaphysical response in our world.

We could try to analyze eye-witness accounts, for example. Aquinas once needed to give a speech, but he grew a new tooth, a double tooth. It affected how he talked, so he was going to have to postpone the speech. Instead, he took it to prayer. He prayed and prayed. The tooth fell out causing no pain and he was able to deliver his speech.

Supposing he did not lie, and it is very unlikely he would have, what would be the natural explanation? Double teeth don't just fall out, especially when they are new.

I find it odd you think you accomplished some victory here. It is like you are raising your own hand at the end of a boxing match. Bravo, I guess?

Chum, you don't need to ask me to prove my case - you already admitted it with the bit about the same thing happens in other religions. One Could ascribe that to a god of no particular religion but there is no valid claim to ascribe it to a god of a particular religion only that you have Faith that it is so. But logically since it works just as well with no god, that is a perfectly valid and more logical position. That's a win on points at least.

You appear to be trying to back up Faith (as usually happens) with Evidence of prayers being answered. I have had a miraculous answer to a need in my own life, but I was an atheist; I didn't pray. Thus there is no reason to ascribe any such lucky coincidences (and let's face it, anecdotal stories of 'inexplicable' answers to prayers cannot be accepted at face value) to some sorta god, and (as you said yourself) not to any particular god, anyway. I don't claim I won the boxing match, but you definitely lose.

You have not demonstrated how I lost. You just made a baseless claim. What is being defended here is not that a particular idea of God answers prayers, but how it can be the case that God in general answers prayers.

Do you think you have somehow shown it to be impossible that God answers prayers? I doubt you believe that.

So what exactly am I losing here again?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #56]


Congratulations, you just passed from apologeticof the 2nd kind to apologetics of the 3rd kind.

You already made it clear - not me - that (in your view) god answers all prayers in any religion (or presumably none, because - as I said - I had a 'miracle' in my life). Thus a argument for any particular god through answered prayer is dead in the water by your own example.

Now of course there is no way to prove that there is no divine mechanism (name your own) for granting prayers, but the difficulties about that even working, like two teams pray for victory but one side has to lose, makes it the go - to hypothesis that the granting of prayers is an illusion with demonstrable evidence and logic to back that view up and just excuses and denial (as you exhibited by ignoring that you already said god answered prayers for all religions, even after I'd posted it for you) to keep the theist argument alive, and you are about to step on the slippery slope to total discredit. Not a threat but a friendly warning to step carefully.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #56]


Congratulations, you just passed from apologeticof the 2nd kind to apologetics of the 3rd kind.

You already made it clear - not me - that (in your view) god answers all prayers in any religion (or presumably none, because - as I said - I had a 'miracle' in my life). Thus a argument for any particular god through answered prayer is dead in the water by your own example.

Now of course there is no way to prove that there is no divine mechanism (name your own) for granting prayers, but the difficulties about that even working, like two teams pray for victory but one side has to lose, makes it the go - to hypothesis that the granting of prayers is an illusion with demonstrable evidence and logic to back that view up and just excuses and denial (as you exhibited by ignoring that you already said god answered prayers for all religions, even after I'd posted it for you) to keep the theist argument alive, and you are about to step on the slippery slope to total discredit. Not a threat but a friendly warning to step carefully.

I do not see that even close to happening.

I did not say God equally answers prayers of all people from all religions, but that God can answer anyone's prayers he wishes. The topic of this thread is if prayer is pointless, especially if prayer must align with the will of God. I showed why it would not be pointless even though this is the case.

God will not answer your prayer if you never bother to ask, so in order to receive an answer to your prayer, you must first ask. You MIGHT receive an answer if it is within the will of God.

My response shows that if I am correct, then prayer is not pointless. It doesn't matter if God also answers atheists or Muslims sometimes. This is no way shows how prayer is pointless.


Your contention seems to be that you think prayer is pointless because even if God did not exist the world would be exactly as it is now, concerning prayers answered. I have seen no evidence for this claim. Pointing to people praying from different faiths and receiving answers is if anything evidence for God answering prayers, and how different the world would be if God did not exist.

An atheist receiving an answer to their prayer of say better health is not evidence against God answering them. If anything, it is evidence that God did answer the atheist.

What might be evidence for prayer being pointless is if we could show that God answers no one, ever.

[POI]

While I patiently awake a response to post #54.....

I did not say God equally answers prayers of all people from all religions, but that God can answer anyone's prayers he wishes. The topic of this thread is if prayer is pointless, especially if prayer must align with the will of God. I showed why it would not be pointless even though this is the case.

Based upon your rationale, this self-proclaimed loving god 'wishes' to ignore many requests, regardless of their faith. ---> amputees, sickle cell anemia, downs syndrome, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease, dementia, Parkinson's disease, etc etc etc........

So I then ask... If/when 'science' ever finds cures to such conditions, does god still get the credit? If so, I guess god did not wish for people to YET be saved from such conditions; even though people prayed for them to be removed/cured.

God will not answer your prayer if you never bother to ask, so in order to receive an answer to your prayer, you must first ask.

Well, as long as the request fits within his "approval list"; which happens to perpetually exclude the list above. But somehow, he's okay with intervening with OTHER medical conditions, like cancer or hepatitis C patients. But, of course, not until "science" first made advances.

You MIGHT receive an answer if it is within the will of God.

Right, as long as it already aligned with God's will. As I already explained in the original post

My response shows that if I am correct, then prayer is not pointless. It doesn't matter if God also answers atheists or Muslims sometimes. This is no way shows how prayer is pointless.

You already admitted god will not answer a prayer request if it does not already align with god's will. So yea, I'd say prayer is pointless. We already know, no matter what, he is not going to cure many many many currently incurable conditions. Hence, praying for such would be pointless.

What might be evidence for prayer being pointless is if we could show that God answers no one, ever.

I have demonstrated, that there exists many conditions he 100% of the time wishes not to answer. Hence, if he does actually happen to answer, ever, the answer is always NO.

[AquinasForGod]

There are recorded cases of actual miracles from prayer, I personally have witnessed answers to prayer that defy any natural explanation.

Example please?

I see no point in giving examples because I already know what the responses will be. If I give an example of a man that was blind and then prayed at Aquinas' relics and his sight was restored, you would say it is anecdotal or untrue. Even if there were enough evidence of say a person's arm growing back, you would remain skeptical. You would think it was a trick somehow. Criss angel walked on water after all.

If I told you how sick I was for years, and spent the remaining of those years mostly in bed, getting worse and worse, then I prayed to either end my life or make me well, then I suddenly got well, without taking any medicines or receiving any treatments, you aren't going to believe I am telling the truth, or I have a fault memory, or my body healed itself, etc.