Apologist explains how to get prayer answered.

[unknown soldier]

If there's one issue that keeps apologists busy, it's the issue of unanswered prayer. Skeptics often point out that the hungry children who pray for food often die of starvation. If God exists, then why don't we see better results from prayer? Christian apologist Kyle Butt answers this question on pages 229-244 of A Christian's Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism. He explains that effective prayer must conform to the following:

1. Prayer must be "in the name of Jesus." That is, prayer must be in accord with Jesus' teachings and authority.
2. It is necessary for prayer to be in accord with God's will. God has a way of doing things that no prayer can change.
3. The person praying must believe she will receive what she requests. Otherwise, she won't receive what she requests!
4. The person praying must be a righteous person. So all you sinners, forget it!
5. Prayer won't work if the petitioner prays with selfish desires.
6. Persistence in prayer is important. One or two prayers might not be enough.

I'm eager to read what other members here have to say about these guidelines, but allow me to start out saying that if 1 is true, then anybody who is not a Christian won't benefit from prayer. I wonder if those non-Christians see that their prayers aren't doing any good.

Guideline 2 seems odd. It's like God saying: "I'll do anything you ask as long as I want to do it."

I'd say that 3 can result in a "snowball effect" which is to say that if a doubter's doubt can lead to a prayer not being answered, then the doubter might doubt even more!

Regarding 4, it seems to me that sinners need answered prayer more than the righteous.

Guideline 5 also seems odd because if you're petitioning God for something you want or need, then you are thinking of yourself, and what's wrong with that?

Finally, 6 doesn't explain why God can't just grant the petition with one prayer request, and neither does it tell us how many prayers it takes to succeed. Could it be that the person praying is praying for something that in time she'll get whether she prays or not?

[brunumb]

Therefore "I don't know" is the most rational answer to the Kalam argument.

Agreed. When one has accepted and believes in Jesus it becomes necessary to establish his provenance. We have to go back beyond Yahweh/Jehovah/God as represented in the OT and present a solid case for the existence of gods in general. When one is faced with "we don't know" that does nothing to prop up prior held beliefs. So we end up with special pleading and all sorts of excuses that allow a god into the mix to the exclusion of matter and energy behaving in ways that we don't yet know but which are purely natural without any supernatural element.

[Tcg]

Who here, who among us, who is so knowing, and so proud to tell they know the condition of the universe prior to the big bang?

Right here! That'd be me! Oh, wait, yeah, I don't know. I'm not even sure I know the condition of the universe now. I know it's big right? Even Texas would seem small in comparison. But what I do know is that "not knowing" isn't evidence that some something else must have caused it and therefore that something else exists.


Tcg

[The Tanager]

Arguments are not evidence. If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent. The supernatural is merely a construct to allow people to say that something exists when in reality it doesn't. The realm of wishful thinking one might say.

Where is the observational evidence for the truth of this claim that without observational evidence, X is indistinguishable from being imaginary/non-existent? There is none. Therefore, by its own logic, your claim is imaginary. That’s the bankruptcy of scientism.

Do you think that changing 'gods' into 'X' makes for some sort of logical and valid response?

The X isn't a substitute for "gods" but for anything. If my response is illogical or invalid, then show it to be so. You've made a claim that says physical observation is required to distinguish something from being imaginary or non-existent. A claim that has no physical observation to distinguish it from being imaginary or non-existent. Your statement is self-defeating.

[The Tanager]

We have something observed - the universe. By the bounds of the Kalam argument, we can stop right here and say the universe has always existed (if in a prior form), without having to invoke magical, unobserved, sentient entities to explain the universe's existence.

That, by the 'rules' of the Kalam argument is the most logical answer.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “the bounds of the Kalam,” but the Kalam does not allow for the space-time universe to have always existed. The second premise clearly states that it began to exist. Not just our current state, but the universe in the sense of “all physical stuff,” whatever and however many states it has been in.

However, I propose it's not the most rational answer cause we simply don't know the answer.

Who here, who among us, who is so knowing, and so proud to tell they know the condition of the universe prior to the big bang?

Therefore "I don't know" is the most rational answer to the Kalam argument.

I haven’t made any claim about the condition of the physical universe prior to the big bang. The Kalam doesn’t make any claim. The Kalam is about whether that physical stuff is eternal or had a beginning, no matter how many states it’s been through.

We don't know if the universe is non/caused, and we don't know if it's non/eternal.

Don't let Kalam, or his acolytes, trick you into thinking their 'logical' argument represents any truth other'n their desire to convince you a god they can't show exists did him a thing they can't show he did.

To come to this conclusion, rationally, would include being able to refute the premises or the logical form of the argument.

[JoeyKnothead]

We have something observed - the universe. By the bounds of the Kalam argument, we can stop right here and say the universe has always existed (if in a prior form), without having to invoke magical, unobserved, sentient entities to explain the universe's existence.

That, by the 'rules' of the Kalam argument is the most logical answer.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “the bounds of the Kalam,” but the Kalam does not allow for the space-time universe to have always existed.

While it does nothing to show such is the case, and excuses its god of any responsibility to hold to the same requirement.

The second premise clearly states that it began to exist. Not just our current state, but the universe in the sense of “all physical stuff,” whatever and however many states it has been in.

It assumes such is the case, and doesn't hold its god to the same requirement.

However, I propose it's not the most rational answer cause we simply don't know the answer.

Who here, who among us, who is so knowing, and so proud to tell they know the condition of the universe prior to the big bang?

Therefore "I don't know" is the most rational answer to the Kalam argument.

I haven’t made any claim about the condition of the physical universe prior to the big bang. The Kalam doesn’t make any claim.

It claims the universe "began" to exist, while exempting its god from this requirement.

The Kalam is about whether that physical stuff is eternal or had a beginning, no matter how many states it’s been through.

And it assumes it had a beginning, while excusing its god from this requirement.

We don't know if the universe is non/caused, and we don't know if it's non/eternal.

Don't let Kalam, or his acolytes, trick you into thinking their 'logical' argument represents any truth other'n their desire to convince you a god they can't show exists did him a thing they can't show he did.

To come to this conclusion, rationally, would include being able to refute the premises or the logical form of the argument.

I've pointed out the flaws repeatedly across a multiple of posts now.

That you reject such is a condition I ain't apt to fix. I post now so the observer new to these notions can see those flaws for what they are

[Diagoras]

Arguments are not evidence. If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent. The supernatural is merely a construct to allow people to say that something exists when in reality it doesn't. The realm of wishful thinking one might say.

Where is the observational evidence for the truth of this claim that without observational evidence, X is indistinguishable from being imaginary/non-existent? There is none. Therefore, by its own logic, your claim is imaginary. That’s the bankruptcy of scientism.

Do you think that changing 'gods' into 'X' makes for some sort of logical and valid response?

The X isn't a substitute for "gods" but for anything. If my response is illogical or invalid, then show it to be so. You've made a claim that says physical observation is required to distinguish something from being imaginary or non-existent. A claim that has no physical observation to distinguish it from being imaginary or non-existent. Your statement is self-defeating.

If I’m understanding correctly, then you should be able to falsify the statement: ”physical observation is required to distinguish something from being imaginary or non-existent.” How would you go about doing that in the general case? For instance, distinguishing whether X (the chocolate bar in my office drawer) is real or imaginary?

[JoeyKnothead]

Arguments are not evidence. If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent. The supernatural is merely a construct to allow people to say that something exists when in reality it doesn't. The realm of wishful thinking one might say.

Where is the observational evidence for the truth of this claim that without observational evidence, X is indistinguishable from being imaginary/non-existent? There is none. Therefore, by its own logic, your claim is imaginary. That’s the bankruptcy of scientism.

Do you think that changing 'gods' into 'X' makes for some sort of logical and valid response?

The X isn't a substitute for "gods" but for anything. If my response is illogical or invalid, then show it to be so. You've made a claim that says physical observation is required to distinguish something from being imaginary or non-existent. A claim that has no physical observation to distinguish it from being imaginary or non-existent. Your statement is self-defeating.

Read a bit more carefully, there's nothing in brunumb's comment...

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.

.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.

It just merely notes that in the absence of observing such, gods and the imaginary look a lot alike.

If I, who brunumb can't observe, were able to tell brunumb something only brunumb knows, brunumb'd be all like, "Well dangitall, ol' Joey there does exist, even if I ain't observed him - and he's a-working for the derp state!"

We can trust in many things without observing em. I don't observe gravity, but I've observed my broken ribs on an xray after the fire rescue folks had to fetch me out a river cause I thought the water was deeper'n it was, and only my cat-like reflexes allowed me to tuck and roll instead of spearing myself face front into that bed of rocks. I trust gravity's there now, whether I can see it or not.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.

Beats me. I only know if I don't take my meds, I end up to getting me a random color of jello every afternoon at 2, except on Sunday, then it's ice cream.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #597]

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for gods, then they are indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent.
.. that says this is a / the only requirement for establishing the existence of something.

Beats me. I only know if I don't take my meds, I end up to getting me a random color of jello every afternoon at 2, except on Sunday, then it's ice cream.

If there is no observable physical/natural/material evidence for minds, then are they indistinguishable from the imaginary or the non-existent?