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....

[POI]

Communication

I will need a little elaboration here...

Is it two way communication?
How do you know?
What does this communication entail exactly?
Do you ask for anything in this communication?
Does he ever grant what you ask?
How do you know?

[POI]

A skeptic could say, I think her body healed itself. Okay cool. She rationally believes God answered her prayer.

If it is possible God answers some prayers like this, then it is not pointless to pray.

You, or them, are placing hopes upon a big IF. An IF, which has not been demonstrated in reality. What IS demonstrated, is that this so-called god is either A) ignoring requests to reverse irreversible conditions, or, B) is not there at all. And you already acknowledged A), by telling us He wants to remain hidden, etc....

By praying, we are trying to align ourselves with the will of our very existence, thus elevating us closer to perfection, closer to God.

So even if we never get any physical answers to our prayers, we do grow closer to God.

Based upon what you stated above, of the two choices below, which one is more reasonable?:

A) what you said above
B) your god is imaginary

Before you answer, notice how YOUR explanation above can just as easily be applied to any claimed invisible deity.

That is not true. I can prove the non-existence of a 2D object existence in 2D space that has 3 sides and 4 sides simultaneously, just as I can prove the non-existence of married bachelors.

Your response did not address my prior response, in the slightest. God claims are not falsifiable. In this particular case, I'm demonstrating that this claimed god is not adhering to what he says he will do. And we all read along, as you offer (ad hoc / post hoc) excuses for why he doesn't.

Same here, although, I have hope that you might still come to God.

Then pray for God to give me that "Damascus road experience, with witnesses". Put your money where your mouth is, and please do so.

Surely, you do not think you have offered any theists a reason to stop believing, right?

Surely, not the ones which admit that nothing can change their mind, like you

I answered this above.

You may have given 'answers' before... But none which are logical, in compared to what the holy book claims. This is why I asked if you are pulling 'answers' out of your own keester....

I am positive that you haven't shown any theist that it is safe to say God is not answering any good irreversible requests because we have medical documentation of incurable diseases going away. You can claim it is the body healing itself, but that doesn't change that we do not have the understanding or technology to reverse the disease. We give them a death sentence because most everyone dies. There are just a small handful of people that miraculously survived.

Is cancer "curable" (by human intervention), or does cancer go into remission? I believe it does.... Hence, it is not irreversible. This is why I have never included this on the "god ain't addressing this request" list.

I don't think a theist will have many issues with God not answering prayers for an arm to grow back. That is like asking God to prove himself, which he clearly is not in the business of doing.

Oh, I'm sure the truly faithful will not either. They already know god won't cure these types of requests. So they reasonably do not ask. But they know to pray for a quick death for downs syndrome, cerebral palsy, and amputations?

So we are left with the kinds of prayer requests, for which you suggested he does answer; like praying for requests which are not demonstrated to require any god anyways.

[OneWay]

Communication

I will need a little elaboration here...

Is it two way communication?
How do you know?
What does this communication entail exactly?
Do you ask for anything in this communication?
Does he ever grant what you ask?
How do you know?

Anytime you speak to anyone, you are communicating even
if they do not speak back to you.

[TRANSPONDER]

Communication

I will need a little elaboration here...

Is it two way communication?
How do you know?
What does this communication entail exactly?
Do you ask for anything in this communication?
Does he ever grant what you ask?
How do you know?

Anytime you speak to anyone, you are communicating even
if they do not speak back to you.

Keep it vague, hey? Look chum, you can't fool us with smokescreen evasions and we know what's involved here.
,
Communication - to someone you know is there and they can talk back even if they don't do so.

One way communication, talk to the trees, the hills and your garden gnome. Communication but pointless other than to make you think you are accomplishing something..Which brings us to

communicating with something we may believe is there. In the UFO mythology, people thought they were getting messages from Flying Saucer pilots. Claimed important messages, yes, even prophetic ones. Communication with imaginary gods and Saints is just the same.

So...'communication' is so vague as to be deceptive. It is evasive, and mate, if you didn't know deep down hat it was so, you would never have done that evasion.

[POI]

Anytime you speak to anyone, you are communicating even
if they do not speak back to you.

You are remaining vague in your replies.

Is it ever a two way communication?
How do you know?
What does this communication entail exactly?
Do you ask for anything in this communication?
Does he ever grant what you ask?
How do you know?

Is there a point? Is the point ever to ask for stuff? Does he respond?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #132]

Based upon what you stated above, of the two choices below, which one is more reasonable?:

A) what you said above
B) your god is imaginary

For me because of the experiences I have had, A. I would be unreasonable to think B.

For you, it might be B, especially if you never looked deeply into the metaphysical arguments for and against God.

Before you answer, notice how YOUR explanation above can just as easily be applied to any claimed invisible deity.

That would be incorrect. After one has enough experiences, those experiences come with sets of data that rules out other such beings.

Your response did not address my prior response, in the slightest. God claims are not falsifiable. In this particular case, I'm demonstrating that this claimed god is not adhering to what he says he will do. And we all read along, as you offer (ad hoc / post hoc) excuses for why he doesn't.

You mean, you think God ought to answer every prayer or the prayers you think he ought to answer, but you are a finite being. It is like when you were a child, maybe you got really made at your mom or dad because you did not understand why they punished you the way they did. When you got older and understood they were preparing you to get on in the world, then you knew just how misdirected your anger was.

That is how I think you will feel once you see the world for how it is and begin to understand why it is that way.

Either way, I don't see any reason to take seriously your claims that God ought to answer the prayers you think he ought to.

If you wish to use bible, you will need to go to the early church fathers and the church. Why would a Christian care how an atheist interprets the bible? They wouldn't. And Catholics are different than protestants because we believe in the oral tradition about how to properly understand the bible.

So basically, all you have is, you think God ought to be such and such a way. I disagree with how you think God ought to be.

Then pray for God to give me that "Damascus road experience, with witnesses". Put your money where your mouth is, and please do so.

You assume I don't. But if God comes, you will not need witnesses. As hard as you might try to be skeptical of the experience, it will change your nonetheless.

Surely, not the ones which admit that nothing can change their mind, like you

When did I say that nothing can change my mind? I just think you lack what it takes to do so.

You may have given 'answers' before... But none which are logical, in compared to what the holy book claims. This is why I asked if you are pulling 'answers' out of your own keester....

Then why not look into it yourself and see how the church has understood the verses.

Is cancer "curable" (by human intervention), or does cancer go into remission? I believe it does.... Hence, it is not irreversible. This is why I have never included this on the "god ain't addressing this request" list.

There are types of cancer and diseases that we have never cured, not one case, yet some people with these very diseases have gotten better.

Oh, I'm sure the truly faithful will not either. They already know god won't cure these types of requests. So they reasonably do not ask. But they know to pray for a quick death for downs syndrome, cerebral palsy, and amputations?

You have done this a few times now. You misrepresent what I say. Show me where I said pray for a quick death. Rather, what I said is, one might pray to be cured, but the answer to that prayer might come as a good death. A good death is better than a slow one, yes?

So we are left with the kinds of prayer requests, for which you suggested he does answer; like praying for requests which are not demonstrated to require any god anyways.

Or God is needed when someone has a disease that humans have never successfully cured, then he prays and gets well.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #132]

Based upon what you stated above, of the two choices below, which one is more reasonable?:

A) what you said above
B) your god is imaginary

For me because of the experiences I have had, A. I would be unreasonable to think B.

For you, it might be B, especially if you never looked deeply into the metaphysical arguments for and against God.

Before you answer, notice how YOUR explanation above can just as easily be applied to any claimed invisible deity.

That would be incorrect. After one has enough experiences, those experiences come with sets of data that rules out other such beings.

Your response did not address my prior response, in the slightest. God claims are not falsifiable. In this particular case, I'm demonstrating that this claimed god is not adhering to what he says he will do. And we all read along, as you offer (ad hoc / post hoc) excuses for why he doesn't.

You mean, you think God ought to answer every prayer or the prayers you think he ought to answer, but you are a finite being. It is like when you were a child, maybe you got really made at your mom or dad because you did not understand why they punished you the way they did. When you got older and understood they were preparing you to get on in the world, then you knew just how misdirected your anger was.

That is how I think you will feel once you see the world for how it is and begin to understand why it is that way.

Either way, I don't see any reason to take seriously your claims that God ought to answer the prayers you think he ought to.

If you wish to use bible, you will need to go to the early church fathers and the church. Why would a Christian care how an atheist interprets the bible? They wouldn't. And Catholics are different than protestants because we believe in the oral tradition about how to properly understand the bible.

So basically, all you have is, you think God ought to be such and such a way. I disagree with how you think God ought to be.

Then pray for God to give me that "Damascus road experience, with witnesses". Put your money where your mouth is, and please do so.

You assume I don't. But if God comes, you will not need witnesses. As hard as you might try to be skeptical of the experience, it will change your nonetheless.

Surely, not the ones which admit that nothing can change their mind, like you

When did I say that nothing can change my mind? I just think you lack what it takes to do so.

You may have given 'answers' before... But none which are logical, in compared to what the holy book claims. This is why I asked if you are pulling 'answers' out of your own keester....

Then why not look into it yourself and see how the church has understood the verses.

Is cancer "curable" (by human intervention), or does cancer go into remission? I believe it does.... Hence, it is not irreversible. This is why I have never included this on the "god ain't addressing this request" list.

There are types of cancer and diseases that we have never cured, not one case, yet some people with these very diseases have gotten better.

Oh, I'm sure the truly faithful will not either. They already know god won't cure these types of requests. So they reasonably do not ask. But they know to pray for a quick death for downs syndrome, cerebral palsy, and amputations?

You have done this a few times now. You misrepresent what I say. Show me where I said pray for a quick death. Rather, what I said is, one might pray to be cured, but the answer to that prayer might come as a good death. A good death is better than a slow one, yes?

So we are left with the kinds of prayer requests, for which you suggested he does answer; like praying for requests which are not demonstrated to require any god anyways.

Or God is needed when someone has a disease that humans have never successfully cured, then he prays and gets well.

It looks to me like you have started on apologetics of the Third Kind (1) but not just yet. You are trying to fiddle subjective Experiences (and it is axiomatic how humans can fool themselves) plus smugly asserting that someone cannot change your mind, as if that was credit to you, when that is merely saying your mind is closed. Goes with being a religious believer. You are still doing the inverted logic of we have to get you to deconvert or you win. No - you have to make a logical and evidence -based case or you lose. The 'logic' had been rebutted; the authorities you cite seem to have their heads on back to front and your evidence is appeal to unknowns, such as cancer remission. An old apologetic, but still valid apart from being a logical fallacy. Because we once didn't know how instinct worked ad some did indeed ascribe it to 'God'. It is getting pretty thin to use cancer remission as evidence for a god that answers prayer, especially as (of course - the old problem) sometimes He doesn't ("God knows best").

Bottom line, apart from the unknown and unexplained, such as cancer remission, the world works as it would if there was no god there. Which is why some die even when prayed for. And even if a god did it, which god? doesn't the same happen in other religions?

And if you don't intend this as proof of any particular religion (or denomination) then you have nothing other than an academic point that atheism should be renamed irreligious theism. Arguments for "god" (one has to use caps and quotes as carefully as pronouns) are irrelevant; arguments about particular religion are relevant. The 'cheek' start with the denialist shots like telling people to go an convince themselves, they will one day be converted, and making out that your denialism proves that our evidence or arguments are inadequate. And yes, you did all of that if not in those words, just as you are being crafty, tricky and evasive with good death or quick death, which is irrelevant nit -picking to scorer a cheap point, as you ain't scoring any valid ones. Chum, you may stoutly declare that nothing will ever change your mind, but half of the present atheists once said the same.

(1) first kind - arguing on evidence
2nd kind - fiddling the evidence.
3rd kind - cheek.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #137]

No - you have to make a logical and evidence -based case or you lose.

I lose what exactly? Your cheerleading that you think I won? I am only concerned here with offering answers that I know some future people will look at and go, hey, that makes more since than the atheists make. Even if I only get one person to think that, then I won, if winning means anything.

An old apologetic, but still valid apart from being a logical fallacy. Because we once didn't know how instinct worked ad some did indeed ascribe it to 'God'. It is getting pretty thin to use cancer remission as evidence for a god that answers prayer, especially as (of course - the old problem) sometimes He doesn't ("God knows best").

Nice strawman. Do you honestly think that is my position? Maybe you could steelman my position to see if we are even on the same page because I can tell you for sure you are misrepresenting my position.

I am not using cancer remissions as evidence that God does in fact answer prayers. My argument is...

1. There are diseases that have not been successfully treated by doctors.
2. There are cases of people with said disease that have recovered.
3. These same people happened to pray to God to get better.
4. Possibly, God answered their prayers.
5. Because it is possible that God answered their prayers, it is reasonable for them to believe God answered their prayers.
6. Therefore, prayers are not necessarily pointless.

That is just one of the arguments I have stated. Here is another.

1. It is possible that God exists. (Arguments for God)
2. If God exists, it is possible that prayers benefit the person in some way. (Such as feeling peace or helping them control their anger)
3. If they derive any benefit at all from prayer, then prayer is not pointless.
4. Some do derive benefits from prayer.
5. Therefore, prayer is not pointless.


And actually, here is another one. Edited to add this.

If prayer offers any benefit, then prayer is not pointless.
Prayer offers benefits to some people
therefore, prayer is not pointless.

[Hawkins]

Communication

I will need a little elaboration here...

Is it two way communication?
How do you know?
What does this communication entail exactly?
Do you ask for anything in this communication?
Does he ever grant what you ask?
How do you know?

It is usually the only way for someone not only to communicate with God, but also to establish a relationship.

Roughly speaking, it forms a pattern to an individual such that the subconsciousness of that person can recognize to believe and to strengthen his/her faith at the same time.

God does it this way because a usual communication is under the constrain that one relies on his faith to be saved. That is, the communication will has the effect of strengthening his belief by faith. Another way of communication is the type how God communicates with His chosen witnesses which are referred to as the OT prophets.

[OneWay]

Communication

I will need a little elaboration here...

Is it two way communication?
How do you know?
What does this communication entail exactly?
Do you ask for anything in this communication?
Does he ever grant what you ask?
How do you know?

It is usually the only way for someone not only to communicate with God, but also to establish a relationship.

Roughly speaking, it forms a pattern to an individual such that the subconsciousness of that person can recognize to believe and to strengthen his/her faith at the same time.

God does it this way because a usual communication is under the constrain that one relies on his faith to be saved. That is, the communication will has the effect of strengthening his belief by faith. Another way of communication is the type how God communicates with His chosen witnesses which are referred to as the OT prophets.

I do not pray or have to pray to communicate with the living God.
I am one with Him at all times.