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]

[Replying to POI in post #154]

So if someone rubs a 'lucky rabbit's foot' for a time, and never prays to your god, and their perceived 'impossible request' is later granted, they cannot 'logically conclude' it was because of the rabbit's foot?

This question baffles my mind. I could probably just leave my response as that and most people would understand why. I am wondering, did he really just ask this question? Is he being serious?

Did he not think about it first? He had to of.

A (rabbit's foot) in principle cannot answer prayers, so it would not be logical to conclude that it did.

God in principle can answer prayers...

I sure hope this post was an attempt to troll the topic because you are bored.

LOL! You were the one who tried to argue for a 'relic', in some capacity, many responses prior. Allow me to exchange one word, in your reply above, so you can see what I'm speaking about:

A (relic), in principle, cannot answer prayers; so it would not be logical to conclude that it did.

Your argument is that it is ridiculous to argue that an iinanimate object answers requests. But it's the same argument that you gave many responses ago. All I need to say is I had so-and-so 'bless' this rabbit's foot. And viola! It's a special rabbit's foot. Heck, maybe all these purchased rabbit's feet are pre-blessed, from the factory, before being sold.

But I think brunumb's point was even more simple. The rate of 'answered prayer' would likely be exactly the same, if you merely exchanged god with the rabbit's foot.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #154]

I think it is time to move onto my argument.

What is the point of prayer? ANSWER: To receive some benefit.

And now is the following argument valid? It is, but I will give you the chance to show otherwise. It is Modes Ponens. That will help you figure out if it is valid or not.

And is it sound? Are the premises true? If they are false, please demonstrate so.

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

If the argument is both valid and sound, then prayer has a point, which is to receive some benefit. It doesn't matter what that benefit is because any benefit at all proves that prayer has a point and is thus not pointless.

If you meant to discuss something else, maybe ask a different question than "What's the point of prayer?"

Yea. Like brunumb already pointed out, the rabbit's foot offers equal benefit. (i.e.)

If (a rabbit's foot) offers any benefit to some people, then (a rabbit's foot) is not pointless for those people.
(A rabbit's foot) offers benefits to some people
therefore, (a rabbit's foot) is not pointless to those people.

If the argument is both valid and sound, then (a rabbit's foot) has a point, which is to receive some benefit. It doesn't matter what that benefit is because any benefit at all proves that (a rabbit's foot) has a point and is thus not pointless.

And as been demonstrated, prayer is about as useful as a rabbit's foot. So the point looks to be to achieve a "warm fuzzy" -- pun intended

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #154]

I think it is time to move onto my argument.

What is the point of prayer? ANSWER: To receive some benefit.

And now is the following argument valid? It is, but I will give you the chance to show otherwise. It is Modes Ponens. That will help you figure out if it is valid or not.

And is it sound? Are the premises true? If they are false, please demonstrate so.

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

If the argument is both valid and sound, then prayer has a point, which is to receive some benefit. It doesn't matter what that benefit is because any benefit at all proves that prayer has a point and is thus not pointless.

If you meant to discuss something else, maybe ask a different question than "What's the point of prayer?"

Yea. Like brunumb already pointed out, the rabbit's foot offers equal benefit. (i.e.)

If (a rabbit's foot) offers any benefit to some people, then (a rabbit's foot) is not pointless for those people.
(A rabbit's foot) offers benefits to some people
therefore, (a rabbit's foot) is not pointless to those people.

If the argument is both valid and sound, then (a rabbit's foot) has a point, which is to receive some benefit. It doesn't matter what that benefit is because any benefit at all proves that (a rabbit's foot) has a point and is thus not pointless.

And as been demonstrated, prayer is about as useful as a rabbit's foot. So the point looks to be to achieve a "warm fuzzy" -- pun intended

So then you agree praying is not pointless. Thanks.

Now the difference with the rabbit foot is it cannot in principle answer prayers whereas God can.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #154]

I think it is time to move onto my argument.

What is the point of prayer? ANSWER: To receive some benefit.

And now is the following argument valid? It is, but I will give you the chance to show otherwise. It is Modes Ponens. That will help you figure out if it is valid or not.

And is it sound? Are the premises true? If they are false, please demonstrate so.

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

If the argument is both valid and sound, then prayer has a point, which is to receive some benefit. It doesn't matter what that benefit is because any benefit at all proves that prayer has a point and is thus not pointless.

If you meant to discuss something else, maybe ask a different question than "What's the point of prayer?"

Yea. Like brunumb already pointed out, the rabbit's foot offers equal benefit. (i.e.)

If (a rabbit's foot) offers any benefit to some people, then (a rabbit's foot) is not pointless for those people.
(A rabbit's foot) offers benefits to some people
therefore, (a rabbit's foot) is not pointless to those people.

If the argument is both valid and sound, then (a rabbit's foot) has a point, which is to receive some benefit. It doesn't matter what that benefit is because any benefit at all proves that (a rabbit's foot) has a point and is thus not pointless.

And as been demonstrated, prayer is about as useful as a rabbit's foot. So the point looks to be to achieve a "warm fuzzy" -- pun intended

So then you agree praying is not pointless. Thanks.

Now the difference with the rabbit foot is it cannot in principle answer prayers whereas God can.

If you want to agree, that the best you can argue, is that the point of praying to YHWH is to achieve a warm fuzzy, then sure But we both know that is not your claim.

And to address more with the 'rabbit's foot', I argue that the rabbit's foot, in principle, can achieve just as much success as prayers. However, it's very doubtful --- as not as many are turning to the rabbit foot, verses prayer. Hence, it's not a fair match-up. But assuming you had just as many rabbit foot inquiries, as we do with prayer, I'm willing to bet the same number of cancer patients would be cured. Provided, they all obtain medical attention as well, of course

Or, the same goes for praying to (YHWH verses the rabbit's foot) for downs, cerebral palsy, and amputees ---> 0%

And like I stated, a couple of responses ago:

"Your argument is that it is ridiculous to argue that an iinanimate object answers requests. But it's the same argument that you gave many responses ago, about the relic. All I need to say is I had so-and-so 'bless' this rabbit's foot. And viola! It's a special rabbit's foot. Heck, maybe all these purchased rabbit's feet are pre-blessed, from the factory, before being sold."

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to POI in post #164]

"Your argument is that it is ridiculous to argue that an inanimate object answers requests. But it's the same argument that you gave many responses ago, about the relic. All I need to say is I had so-and-so 'bless' this rabbit's foot. And viola! It's a special rabbit's foot. Heck, maybe all these purchased rabbit's feet are pre-blessed, from the factory, before being sold."

The relic wasn't believed to be the cause of the healing as they would be unfounded. Rather, God was the cause of healing because of their faith in the Saint. The relic was his dead hand.

From your point of view, where God doesn't exists, it is not the same to pray to God or to a rabbit's foot because even under your view one is physical and the other doesn't exist at all. But if we look at the rationality between the two possibilities, one makes more sense than the other.

A rabbit's foot in principle cannot answer prayers because it has no mind to do so.

A metaphysical God has a mind to do so and is believed to do so sometimes.

A rabbit's foot is not believed to be a mind that could answer prayers. Rather, some people believe it to be a lucky charm, but they wouldn't place the power of luck in the rabbit's foot. They would have some belief about something other that is responsible for luck, like a demi-god or elf.

The ideas are really not the same.

We made progress as to if prayer can have a point. It can, just like meditation is not pointless. In fact, prayer is very much relaxing and causes us to feel renewed much like meditation can. So even if we never get a prayer answered, it is a good practice like meditation.

However, there is also the possibility that the all powerful, metaphysical God might answer in some way to help our life in some way.

You can only disprove this possibility by disproving God, which you cannot do.

There is no such possibility with this when praying to a rabbit's foot. I am pretty sure no one prays to rabbits' feet for this reason. They might hold it in their pocket as a lucky charm, but that is a different topic.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #164]

"Your argument is that it is ridiculous to argue that an inanimate object answers requests. But it's the same argument that you gave many responses ago, about the relic. All I need to say is I had so-and-so 'bless' this rabbit's foot. And viola! It's a special rabbit's foot. Heck, maybe all these purchased rabbit's feet are pre-blessed, from the factory, before being sold."

The relic wasn't believed to be the cause of the healing as they would be unfounded. Rather, God was the cause of healing because of their faith in the Saint. The relic was his dead hand.

From your point of view, where God doesn't exists, it is not the same to pray to God or to a rabbit's foot because even under your view one is physical and the other doesn't exist at all. But if we look at the rationality between the two possibilities, one makes more sense than the other.

A rabbit's foot in principle cannot answer prayers because it has no mind to do so.

A metaphysical God has a mind to do so and is believed to do so sometimes.

A rabbit's foot is not believed to be a mind that could answer prayers. Rather, some people believe it to be a lucky charm, but they wouldn't place the power of luck in the rabbit's foot. They would have some belief about something other that is responsible for luck, like a demi-god or elf.

The ideas are really not the same.

The argument is to show the rate of 'granted answered requests' would likely be exactly the same, if you address 'god' (vs) a 'rabbit's foot' (vs) neither... Your desperation to point out that the rabbit's foot is an inanimate object, is to only get me to chase a much lesser important insignificant side issue.

We made progress as to if prayer can have a point. It can, just like meditation is not pointless. In fact, prayer is very much relaxing and causes us to feel renewed much like meditation can. So even if we never get a prayer answered, it is a good practice like meditation.

No, we did not make virtually any progress. Your claim is that god answers some intercessory or petitionary prayer requests to heal. I say it's likely he does not because:

A) he is not there
B) he is ignoring all requests

To argue that the point of prayer is to feel good or relaxed is not your final position. But the fact that you have now reconciled that this is all you can really demonstrate, is rather telling.... I can achieve the same in Yoga. And I am not praying to any intentional external agency, while meditating in Yoga.

However, there is also the possibility that the all powerful, metaphysical God might answer in some way to help our life in some way.

Hmmm, okay? I sense quite a bit of back-peddling....

You can only disprove this possibility by disproving God, which you cannot do.

Like I've stated repeatedly, I likely cannot disprove any god.

[brunumb]

You can only disprove this possibility by disproving God, which you cannot do.

One cannot disprove the non-existent.
One cannot disprove God.
God is non-existent.

[AquinasForGod]

You can only disprove this possibility by disproving God, which you cannot do.

One cannot disprove the non-existent.
One cannot disprove God.
God is non-existent.

I am thinking you must be joking, or you did not think this through.

One cannot disprove the non-existent.
One cannot disprove apples.
Apples are non-existent.

[brunumb]

You can only disprove this possibility by disproving God, which you cannot do.

One cannot disprove the non-existent.
One cannot disprove God.
God is non-existent.

I am thinking you must be joking, or you did not think this through.

One cannot disprove the non-existent.
One cannot disprove apples.
Apples are non-existent.

Maybe you meant invisible magic apples.

[AquinasForGod]

You can only disprove this possibility by disproving God, which you cannot do.

One cannot disprove the non-existent.
One cannot disprove God.
God is non-existent.

I am thinking you must be joking, or you did not think this through.

One cannot disprove the non-existent.
One cannot disprove apples.
Apples are non-existent.

Maybe you meant invisible magic apples.

I showed you that your argument does work because it also disproves apples which do in fact exist. We cannot disprove something that actually exists. We cannot disprove something that doesn't exist also.