Countless Claims to "Answered" Prayer(s)

[POI]

We have countless claims, from Christians, to God/Jesus answering prayers for healing to human affliction(s). And by 'answered' prayer, I mean God/Jesus states -- (yes, I will grant you this prayer request to remove the human affliction).

For Debate:

1. Does God "answer" any of these prayer requests? If not, why?
2. If so, why does God/Jesus perpetually skip the following afflictions (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cerebral palsy, dementia, diabetes mellites 1, amputation, muscular dystrophy, hunington's disease, epilepsy, parkinson's disease, paget's disease, motor neuron disease, and so on)?

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't want to rub it in but our pal really turns it upside down. Rather than make some compelling case for answered prayer rather than dismiss or ignore the evidence it doesn't work (certainly not as promised in the gospels) the demand is that we prove it doesn't work, or so it seems.

But the evidence that you set out (that it doesn't work) should be evidence that it doesn't work. Not to mention my water into wine challenge which appears to have been ignored.

But we can guess that reversing the burden of proof (if we appeared to accept it) means that 1213 only has to deny everything and he thinks he wins.

[1213]

Also, the writings that survived seems to be in the Bible,

You are incorrect. We only have much later 'copies'. Whatever was written before did not survive. Seems odd that Jesus/God cared not to preserve it.

I think the message was preserved, otherwise we could not read it.

And yet, all Jesus would need to do today, is to demonstrate he still performs miracles. We can start with the list I provided. Again, "answered prayer" is all around us. And yet, nothing with the list?

I don't think ti would cause any meaningful difference. Probably people would try to kill him again.

[POI]

I think the message was preserved, otherwise we could not read it.

You are merely reading what was later written by 'the church'.

I don't think ti would cause any meaningful difference.

It would make a difference. If 'answered prayer' cured the conditions in which were deemed incurable, like the list I provided a few times now, then it would be logical to conclude God answered these prayers. However, where this big list in concerned, there is no answer. And since God is said to answer prayers, he is a) either perpetually skipping requests in which we humans deem incurable for some strange reason, or, b) there is no god.

Which option is more logical to conclude, a) or b)?

[TRANSPONDER]

Also, the writings that survived seems to be in the Bible,

You are incorrect. We only have much later 'copies'. Whatever was written before did not survive. Seems odd that Jesus/God cared not to preserve it.

I think the message was preserved, otherwise we could not read it.

And yet, all Jesus would need to do today, is to demonstrate he still performs miracles. We can start with the list I provided. Again, "answered prayer" is all around us. And yet, nothing with the list?

I don't think ti would cause any meaningful difference. Probably people would try to kill him again.

Well, we have seen all the excuses, apologetics and denial, but the thing remains - the 'message' whether preserved or changed is wrong. Nt or Old, they have stuff that is incorrect, contradictory and just wrong. Whatever it is, it is not reliable, true or credible. That is for the individual to decide - accept the wrong stuff as it says or use Faith to dismiss, excuse or ignore it.

Aside from the claim that Jesus if he came down would soon find himself targeted (Christians at the head of the crowd) that was not what was proposed. What was proposed was a suggestion that if prayer worked and quite unarguably worked,we wouldn't even need to be debating it.

That you had to pull a massively telegraphed strawman shows how you were put on the spot. Prayer is claimed to work, yet we all know that it doesn't really. The water bottle on my desk is still water, and nobody has EVER answered the challenge, just ignored it or made excuses why they shouldn't even try. They know as well as i do, it would not turn into wine.

[POI]

Prayer is claimed to work, yet we all know that it doesn't really.

To further demonstrate this point, when I was exchanging with The Tanager in another thread, I asked him to pray for my uncle with cerebral palsy, my best friend's daughter with diabetes 1, and myself with an amputation. He stated he will. But then I asked him, unanswered twice.

"Why are you going to pray for conditions you KNOW are not going to be cured?"

O well....

[TRANSPONDER]

Without getting into the phenomenon of theist -think, I have become used to such apologetics where a half dozen points are ignored and something else is raised.Even a lot of (just recently) I think this or that. Several times i have had to point out that what a person believes is irrelevant; what case a person can make is relevant.

[1213]

... the 'message' whether preserved or changed is wrong. Nt or Old, they have stuff that is incorrect, contradictory and just wrong. ...

Your situation would be much better, if you could prove your claims correct.

[TRANSPONDER]

Your case and apologetics would do better if you validated anything rather than make claims and do nothing other than support them with more claims, opinion or 'what you think# or believe, or at best hardly relevant Biblequotes., as I recall.

On our side, we present backup and you ignore and dismiss it and then claim - as you did above - that we haven't backed our claims up. I reckon it's the old flawed idea that it's all about you and you keeping your Faith, and how simply denying everything is all you need to do to win.

That is not what it is about, but about providing the best case. Thinking back I can't recall you making any case other than throwing a few hardly relevant Biblequotes at us. You have persistently ignored the prayer challenges, because you know they won't work, and I seem to recall it was you denied slavery in the Bible, tried to wangle daylight before the sun was made and heaven knows how many debunks of the Nativities and resurrection over the dozens of posts you must have filed. I can't recall anything but denial backed up with irrelevant Biblequotes.

I appreciate you keeping going discussions that other believers seem to avoid, but I can't recall any actual case, only denial and asserting 'What I think is...".

Nobody cases what you think - where is your case? hint, wagging the Bible about is not a case.

[1213]

...
That is not what it is about, but about providing the best case. ...

And you think you have provided the best case for atheism? I think your way is biased.

...You have persistently ignored the prayer challenges, because you know they won't work

I believe prayer works exactly as told in the Bible. But, it is interesting that it seems many here want to ignore the parts of the Bible that don't fit to their anti Christian propaganda.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
That is not what it is about, but about providing the best case. ...

And you think you have provided the best case for atheism? I think your way is biased.

...You have persistently ignored the prayer challenges, because you know they won't work

I believe prayer works exactly as told in the Bible. But, it is interesting that it seems many here want to ignore the parts of the Bible that don't fit to their anti Christian propaganda.

But prayer (the kind that asks for something in Fairth) is just how it doesn't work, and you know it doesn't. When you talk of bias, when we both know that prayer doesn't work, I say it does npot work as promised in the Bible. You say it works (and i guess you mean as it does - sometimes - and claim that is how it is in the Bible, when that is not what the Bible says.

You talk of bias? You don't even fiddle bias in favor of the Bible, but fiddle the Bible to suit yourself. And then project your own blinkered view of the Bible onto others. I at least take the Bible for what it says and what it doesn't. But you carry right on your dreadful apologetics don't do us any harm at all.