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]

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.

Disproving the proven makes no sense.

[OnceConvinced]

P = Passing the buck

R = Religious Ritual

A = Asking for advantages over fellow human beings

Y = Yearning for fantasies to be fulfilled

E = Expecting God to violate the freewill of others

R = Remaining inactive while believing you're doing something positive

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to brunumb in post #171]

Right, which is why your argument is invalid. If I can use the same structure and only change the nouns and we arrive a false conclusion then the argument is not valid. A valid argument will always give us a true conclusion if the premises are true.

One cannot disprove apples is a true statement. We cannot disprove apples exist, and BTW, it is possible they do not exist even if you can eat them. Apples could be digital virtual items that you as an AI character believe to be a real apple. Think the Matrix movie.

But if you need more reasons to see why it is not a valid form.

Cannot disprove P.
Cannot disprove Q.
Q is P.

One cannot disprove math. = T
One cannot disprove history. = T
History is math. = F

If you wish for non-existence to mean not existing rather than just being a noun in itself, then we get the following.

Cannot disprove not P.
Cannot disprove Q.
Q is not P.

That is the form you used. You should be able to see now why it is not valid.

One cannot disprove the non-existent. = T
One cannot disprove a true thing. = T
true things are non-existent. = F

If this is a valid form then the conclusion must be false if the premises are true, and the premises here are true. It is true that we cannot disprove the non-existent. We cannot disprove a truth because is true, so premise 2 is true. The conclusion is clearly false because some things must be true.

The argument is not a valid form and thus not useful.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #171]

Right, which is why your argument is invalid. If I can use the same structure and only change the nouns and we arrive a false conclusion then the argument is not valid. A valid argument will always give us a true conclusion if the premises are true.

One cannot disprove apples is a true statement. We cannot disprove apples exist, and BTW, it is possible they do not exist even if you can eat them. Apples could be digital virtual items that you as an AI character believe to be a real apple. Think the Matrix movie.

But if you need more reasons to see why it is not a valid form.

Cannot disprove P.
Cannot disprove Q.
Q is P.

One cannot disprove math. = T
One cannot disprove history. = T
History is math. = F

If you wish for non-existence to mean not existing rather than just being a noun in itself, then we get the following.

Cannot disprove not P.
Cannot disprove Q.
Q is not P.

That is the form you used. You should be able to see now why it is not valid.

One cannot disprove the non-existent. = T
One cannot disprove a true thing. = T
true things are non-existent. = F

If this is a valid form then the conclusion must be false if the premises are true, and the premises here are true. It is true that we cannot disprove the non-existent. We cannot disprove a truth because is true, so premise 2 is true. The conclusion is clearly false because some things must be true.

The argument is not a valid form and thus not useful.

That's OK. If you noticed the emojis I was just playing WAV games.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to brunumb in post #171]

Right, which is why your argument is invalid. If I can use the same structure and only change the nouns and we arrive a false conclusion then the argument is not valid. A valid argument will always give us a true conclusion if the premises are true.

One cannot disprove apples is a true statement. We cannot disprove apples exist, and BTW, it is possible they do not exist even if you can eat them. Apples could be digital virtual items that you as an AI character believe to be a real apple. Think the Matrix movie.

But if you need more reasons to see why it is not a valid form.

Cannot disprove P.
Cannot disprove Q.
Q is P.

One cannot disprove math. = T
One cannot disprove history. = T
History is math. = F

If you wish for non-existence to mean not existing rather than just being a noun in itself, then we get the following.

Cannot disprove not P.
Cannot disprove Q.
Q is not P.

That is the form you used. You should be able to see now why it is not valid.

One cannot disprove the non-existent. = T
One cannot disprove a true thing. = T
true things are non-existent. = F

If this is a valid form then the conclusion must be false if the premises are true, and the premises here are true. It is true that we cannot disprove the non-existent. We cannot disprove a truth because is true, so premise 2 is true. The conclusion is clearly false because some things must be true.

The argument is not a valid form and thus not useful.

That is not a logical syllogism; that has to be a logical fallacy, specifically, equivocation - a play on words trying to show that two different thins re the same thing

A bear is not a lion
A hore is not a lion
therefore a bear is a horse. No That is a false premise; they are different things.

An apple is not disprovable
a god is not disprovable
therefore a god is as real as an apple.

Come On you are using an irrelevant characteristic to prove a relevant one.

X rays are invisible
Gods are invisible
Therefore Gods are as a real as X rays. No, the prameter here is what has been proven, nor even what is unproven but two different things, the undisprovable because it is known to exist and the undisprovable because it is a faith claim that evades verification (OR debunk) by hiding in gaps for gods.

At bottom, your syllogism is flawed because of Goddfaith (I am taking the best view of your fallacy here). Because you are confusing what is undisprovable with what is validated. They are different questions. An apple is validated, the god claim is not. Your parameters are flawed.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #175]

You do know I was using the counter example method to show the form of the argument is not valid, right?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #175]

You do know I was using the counter example method to show the form of the argument is not valid, right?

Ok ya got me. You were debunking 'apples are not - -existent' which is a false conclusion because of a false premise. Ok sorry.
But my argument against what I Thought you were doing stands

"AquinasForGod wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:32 pm
You can only disprove this possibility by disproving God, which you cannot do."

The burden of proof is on you to prove a god, which so far nobody has been able to do.

Non - cue "You messed up there, so you must be wrong about everything else". I believe you are better than to do that, though I have been on the end of that before.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #177]

I agree. No one has proven God, but that doesn't mean that no one has provided evidence for God's existence.

It is also true that science hasn't proven anything. It merely offers evidence for things, and the knowledge we claim to have from science is tentative.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #177]

I agree. No one has proven God, but that doesn't mean that no one has provided evidence for God's existence.

It is also true that science hasn't proven anything. It merely offers evidence for things, and the knowledge we claim to have from science is tentative.

It isn't good enough. That's why Godfaith is illogical, because it relies on Faith in the less well supported Explanation or hypothesis.

On top of that, you have the Which god? A question which Theist apologists consistently avoid.

If you are talking about Biblegod, there is a heap of reasons to not credit that creature as anything but human invention. Evidence. against.

If you are going for deistgod, it is academic. It makes no difference whether you believe or not.

In between you have all sorts of sliding rationalisations between Deism and Fundamentalism and while I can do business with irreligious theists, cafeteria - Christians and Theistic evolutionists and humanists, their position is essentially trying to keep the Faith going while losing it.

You have no good reason to have Faith in a god of either kind, other than you have Faith in it, and neither Kalam, argument from morality or ID is going to make a valid case for it. Kalam is flawed, argument from morality is spurious and ID has a few Questions for science but more questions for the God -hypothesis. e.g if Man was the planned intention of God's creation (I am talking theist evolutionists here) why were so many extinctions needed to give mammals a chance? Evidence is that chance is what it was. We are here by luck, the evidence says, so the goldilocks position around the sun is evidently luck, Someone had to win the Lottery, and it was you and me.

Consider. You and I are sitting here, well off, well fed and well informed to have these cozy chats. You could have been a medieval peasant shovelling dung while the Lord banged your wife. I could have been a Bactrian Buddhist being trampled by Tartar horse archers. We were lucky and I doubt that even you could say that it was God's intention that we are where we are. We were lucky. Someone has to be.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #179]

It isn't good enough. That's why Godfaith is illogical, because it relies on Faith in the less well supported Explanation or hypothesis.

All of the highly intelligent, agnostic philosophers disagree with you. They think the evidence for and against god is a wash, which is why they are agnostics and not atheists. If it were so one sides like you think, such agnostic philosophers would be atheists.

On top of that, you have the Which god? A question which Theist apologists consistently avoid.

Aquinas did not avoid it. Dominican Monks today do not avoid it, like Gregory Pine. William Craig doesn't avoid it.

If you are talking about Biblegod, there is a heap of reasons to not credit that creature as anything but human invention. Evidence. against.

If you are going for deistgod, it is academic. It makes no difference whether you believe or not.

Why does it matter to you if someone believes in the bible God but it makes no difference if they believe in a deistic God? BTW, non-bible God is not necessarily deistic.

In between you have all sorts of sliding rationalisations between Deism and Fundamentalism and while I can do business with irreligious theists, cafeteria - Christians and Theistic evolutionists and humanists, their position is essentially trying to keep the Faith going while losing it.

My faith is only growing and I accept abiogenesis, evolution, cosmic evolution, and all science. Physics is particularly amazing at showing the wonders of God.

You have no good reason to have Faith in a god of either kind, other than you have Faith in it, and neither Kalam, argument from morality or ID is going to make a valid case for it.

I think you are forgetting about personal experiences, which makes up a huge part of who we are and why we believe what we believe, even if you are an atheist.

if Man was the planned intention of God's creation (I am talking theist evolutionists here) why were so many extinctions needed to give mammals a chance?

If I were to program a world and I had an end result in mind, but my world had to work in such a way that my AI have the most choices possible but I also want my world to tend to maximal goodness, and to achieve such a world needs to go through evolution, not just life but the whole world need to evolve, including the cosmos, then I accept the consequences that the world takes along the way to get to where it needs to be. They would be necessary consequences.

Evidence is that chance is what it was. We are here by luck, the evidence says, so the goldilocks position around the sun is evidently luck, Someone had to win the Lottery, and it was you and me.

I do not find that convincing. You obviously do.

Consider. You and I are sitting here, well off, well fed and well informed to have these cozy chats. You could have been a medieval peasant shovelling dung while the Lord banged your wife. I could have been a Bactrian Buddhist being trampled by Tartar horse archers. We were lucky and I doubt that even you could say that it was God's intention that we are where we are. We were lucky. Someone has to be.

We are where we are and when we are because God knows our whole being and where we need to be and when we need to be in order to maximize our chances for maximal goodness.

Had I been a poor beggar, then that is where I would have had to be. Many poor people are actually pretty happy and find God.