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....

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #59]

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.

This assumes that none of these types of people have ever been healed by God throughout human history.

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

There is a difference, though. If God does all things if it fits his will, regardless if we ask or not, then there is no point to asking. But if God only every answers prayers if we ask and when it is in his will, then prayer is not 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.

Just in case my above response is not understood, here is a simple example.

If God answers prayers regardless if they ask, then prayer is pointless. So if I desire a new car but never pray for it, and God gives it to me anyway, it would have been pointless to pray because either way, if I pray or not, I get a new car.

However, if the only way I ever get that new car was if I asked for it, then prayer is not pointless.

In both examples, it was within the will of God, but in the second case I never get the car because I never asked. Being within God's will doesn't mean it must take place.

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.

You haven't, though. You just assumed that no human in history has been healed of amputees, sickle cell anemia, downs syndrome, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease, dementia, Parkinson's disease, etc etc etc........

[POI]

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.

I see you have decided on going with "poisoning the well." That's okay. Seems quite telling... Let me respond anyways, as I sift though the apparent "excuse(s)" you have provided.

You stated "If I give an example..." Does this mean you do not really have an example? And if so, is it an example you can demonstrate? Meaning, if God sometimes wishes to cure the blind, this would mean He still does it in present times, right? Or maybe, He instead wishes to no longer do so? Do you have a documented example, where the person was formally diagnosed as being blind medically, and then was no longer blind, with no medical intervention? Or, do you only have a passed example, which was not medically documented to be reversed without treatment?

Conclusion: Is he still healing blind people today, or, did he wish to stop doing so now -- when we have more tools available to cross examine / cross reference?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #62]

I see you have decided on going with "poisoning the well." That's okay. Seems quite telling... Let me respond anyways, as I sift though the apparent "excuse(s)" you have provided.

Poisoning the well is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.
I am not trying to discredit or ridicule something you or another might say. Rather, I was showing why it is fruitless to give examples of prayers being answered. Also, it is not the topic. I am not trying to demonstrate to anyone that God answers prayers but that if God exists how it is not pointless to pray.

Conclusion: Is he still healing blind people today, or, did he wish to stop doing so now -- when we have more tools available to cross examine / cross reference?

For the sake of argument, suppose God used to heal more blind people and now doesn't heal as many. Does that somehow prove God doesn't still heal some blind people or that he never has?

For example, if God wishes to remain mostly hidden for he knows it is best for humans in the long term, then he wouldn't want to heal blind people when it can be easily looked up and verified, because this would go against his wanting to remain mostly hidden.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #61]

You are missing the point, as Theists generally do because they assume the logic is to point to evidence there isn't a god, when actually the believer needs to point to evidence that there is. So the way it works is not to appeal to unknowns, like 'you can't prove that nobody has ever had an arm grow back'; You need to show evidence that something miraculous has happened to show some evidence there is a god, otherwise you have nothing but a faith - claim. Some other god - apologists here have hit on this point and have argued that miracles have happened. In fact you had presented Anselm's tooth as a miracle, oh yes you did, otherwise there was no point in it. But the point about Amputees is that on the face of it, legs do not grow back; if prayer can do it once (not that I have ever seen a verified claim of that) it should be something that happened often and would be a top argument for God today with atheists at their wits' end trying to explain it. And many other answered prayers that had no other explanation. But as you said yourself, they happen for all sorts of people and as I said, things that a believer would see as answered prayer happen to me, too, so bottom line, there is just normal life, good and bad luck or coincidences. Prayers on all evidence does not get answered. And excuses, normal events presented as miraculous, anecdotes that can't be checked for verification, never mind appeals to unknowns, do not make any kind of case for answered prayer and rather are evidence against it.

You will probably disagree, but that doesn't matter; anyone not already a believer will not (at least once the error in the apologetic is pointed out) fall for the apologetic for prayer.

[POI]

This assumes that none of these types of people have ever been healed by God throughout human history.

Lets explore your logic here.... God intervenes in aiding with the cure in cancer frequently, but, skips all the aforementioned ones.

P1: God wishes to aid in the cure for conditions.
P2: God wishes to aid in the cure for conditions which can also be cured medically.
P3: God wishes NOT to cure conditions which cannot also be cured medically.

Therefore, your assumption is that we do not know for sure if there exists a cure somewhere, that the incurable has ever been cured. Even though we have a LARGE abundance of cured conditions, which also get attributed to "God's hand".

If God answers prayers regardless if they ask, then prayer is pointless. So if I desire a new car but never pray for it, and God gives it to me anyway, it would have been pointless to pray because either way, if I pray or not, I get a new car.

However, if the only way I ever get that new car was if I asked for it, then prayer is not pointless.

In both examples, it was within the will of God, but in the second case I never get the car because I never asked. Being within God's will doesn't mean it must take place.

But your analogy is false.... We can both demonstrate that people get cars all the time. Neither one of us can demonstrate a single instance where such incurable conditions are cured. And yet, we can likely both surmise, without much effort, that it is safe to say prayers were issued. What is the most logical answer? A) God's wish is that the answer is always NO, B) the request is to be ignored, or C) such a god does not exist.

I'm going with C). How about you? Is it A) or B)? But sure, maybe there exists one person, on a remote desert island somewhere, who had their cerebral palsy cured after prayer Yea, let's go with that rationale, shall we?

You haven't, though. You just assumed that no human in history has been healed of amputees, sickle cell anemia, downs syndrome, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, Huntington's disease, dementia, Parkinson's disease, etc etc etc........

LOL! Keep doubling down. This is all you have

[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.

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.

Did you write this or not?.
"I also explain in the post that God can answer prayers of anyone of any religion or non-religion for he answered"

You have changed it to "I did not say God equally answers prayers of all people from all religions, but that God can answer anyone's prayers he wishes". It amounts to the same thing really (1) but because prayers are answered (or not) to the same degree in other religions or none. Or at least no studies (that I have ever seen or heard of) exist to show otherwise and your first comment above (which I don't expect you to ignore) seems to see that as the situation, means that there is no evidence for answered prayer by a particularly Christian (never mind a Catholic) god. You have at most a claim for a generic god that looks after everyone, even atheists. And that amounts to 'god = normal conditions'. which is the atheist apologetic 'it would look just the same if there was no god'. Now try to step outside of your little theist box and see how it looks to someone who is not a believer.

(1) aside from the miserable "I did not use those exact words" evasion, because I see you as better than that.

[POI]

I am not trying to discredit or ridicule something you or another might say. Rather, I was showing why it is fruitless to give examples of prayers being answered.

Basically, you are trying to accuse me of what you already admitted for yourself in this thread or another.... Meaning, (paraphrased) "BTW, nothing you have to say will sway my position."

All I ask, is that you demonstrate an answered prayer. Otherwise, it is pointless. But you know you cannot do that, so you provide "excuses", or tell me I'm "close-minded." So why do you engage at all? Unless you too are doing it for the audience? But so far, I do not see how you figure you will change other's minds about how to think about prayer?

Also, it is not the topic. I am not trying to demonstrate to anyone that God answers prayers

Well, you likely would if you could, but you know you can't. And around we go....

but that if God exists how it is not pointless to pray.

I have demonstrated that it IS pointless to pray, if you have an incurable condition. He's not going to cure you. Your only rebuttal is that there may exist some lone-ranger, in the Ozarks somewhere, who had their sickle cell anemia cured by god.

For the sake of argument, suppose God used to heal more blind people and now doesn't heal as many. Does that somehow prove God doesn't still heal some blind people or that he never has?

For sake of argument, let's tweak that scenario a bit. He now heals basically none, for which you now have the resources to prove. Unless maybe she's chillin' in the Ozarks somewhere, cured, and you find her

For example, if God wishes to remain mostly hidden for he knows it is best for humans in the long term, then he wouldn't want to heal blind people when it can be easily looked up and verified, because this would go against his wanting to remain mostly hidden.

Please please please respond to the last response of the "divine hiddenness" thread (i.e.) "Do atheists have a solid case here?". I address this there....

[TRANSPONDER]

I had to think whether to do a Thanks there, not because you didn't merit it, but there are so many good posts around just now.
But yo, our pal is arguing from the a priori godfsith - position that skews the logic of all the arguments and they cannot see how their position is actually illogical. And really against the evidence, too. They for sure think that all they need to do is explain how it could still work If there was really a god (or at least do the last ditch fallback 'There is probably some good explanation') and they do not get it that no god where there is no really decent evidence for a god is a solid case for non -belief. They truly can never see this because Faith makes them think that God (not to mention Their particular god) is the default -theory; it isn't, but they can never see or accept that.

p.s Of course I noticed the OP again 'what is the point of prayer' and Anselm for God had argued cogently for that, though as I recall there were two conclusions - the prayers were indeed answered but for everyone equally and the purpose was really for the experience of the prayer, not to get anything tangible from it.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #67]

This thing never updated me for getting a reply for this thread.

All I ask, is that you demonstrate an answered prayer. Otherwise, it is pointless.

So you are asking me to demonstrate my witness of something in the past. Can you demonstrate that you witnessed a sunset if you ever have?

I have demonstrated that it IS pointless to pray, if you have an incurable condition. He's not going to cure you.

This is just an assumption that you have yet to demonstrate. It is not good enough to say you haven't seen medical documents of such a miracle. Look harder. There are people that were told by the doctors they are going to die. They cannot do anything else for them. THen that person gets better and lives for more years. You are just going to claim their body healed itself when yo have no evidence that is what happened.

The best you can say is you do not believe God ever healed someone, but you sure have not shown it to be true.

YOu are the one making the claim here that God has never answered prayers, so support it. The claim I am making is that if God exist, it is not necessarily true that prayer is pointless, which I have easily demonstrated.

If God exists, prayers are not necessarily pointless because you will not receive all the graces of God unless you pray.

For sake of argument, let's tweak that scenario a bit. He now heals basically none, for which you now have the resources to prove. Unless maybe she's chillin' in the Ozarks somewhere, cured, and you find her

As explained above, this is not my burden. I am not here to try to convince you of God, which is what would be necessary to convince you he answers prayers. But I am not here to convince you he answers prayers either. I did what I set out to do, which was to address the error of this thread. If God exists then praying is not pointless because if you never pray then you never receive all the grace of God.

Other religions do not matter here because the topic wasn't if praying to Jesus is pointless.

Please please please respond to the last response of the "divine hiddenness" thread (i.e.) "Do atheists have a solid case here?". I address this there....

I might not be getting all updates. I will check it.

[POI]

So you are asking me to demonstrate my witness of something in the past. Can you demonstrate that you witnessed a sunset if you ever have?

No silly. Before I respond, please keep in mind what I informed you about in another thread. It is not my burden to prove a negative. I'm merely saying we have no examples to reference, hence, it's unlikely it's happening.

Case/point: God is likely not curing incurable conditions. Why? Is it because:

A) God does not exist
B) Well, he does exist, and he sometimes does answer prayers, and there may exist an example of this somewhere, but --> (insert excuses/hypotheticals/assumptions here)

Note -- (I skipped some of what you stated below, as I already answered it above)

YOu are the one making the claim here that God has never answered prayers, so support it.

No, I'm making the point that god seems to skip right over prayer requests to cure incurable conditions.

The claim I am making is that if God exist, it is not necessarily true that prayer is pointless, which I have easily demonstrated.

Please remember what I stated about Star Wars, in another thread. If the story IS true, then the 'force' is not pointless. But I digress. You are trying to demonstrate the point of prayer. And I say there is no point, if you have an incurable condition. Which then begs the question, is He even there?

If God exists, prayers are not necessarily pointless because you will not receive all the graces of God unless you pray.

(ME) Apparently, prayers are pointless, if you possess an incurable condition.

(YOU) As explained above, this is not my burden. I am not here to try to convince you of God, which is what would be necessary to convince you he answers prayers. But I am not here to convince you he answers prayers either. I did what I set out to do, which was to address the error of this thread. If God exists then praying is not pointless because if you never pray then you never receive all the grace of God.

(ME) Well thank you for presenting the error of my ways So prayer is not pointless, if you possess an incurable condition?