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?

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

[Diogenes]

[JoeyKnothead]

[William]

Theist: Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible.

Atheist: Yet you require no illogical tag when you propose an uncaused god we can't observe as the cause of a universe we do observe.
_______________________________________
______________ ________________
_______________________________________


: As we should already agree together, since for the present, science informs us that the universe had a beginning, we have to apply the argument "Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible." to that which has a beginning.

Gods come in all shapes and sizes and there are probably myths about gods who had beginnings and gods who's lives could be ended.

However, there is also the myth of the GOD who had no beginning and in that, is the root-cause of all things which do have beginnings.

Therefore;

As an observer, the theist is correct in this case.
"Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible" does not apply to a GOD who has always existed.

That said, nor would it apply to a universe which has always existed...once the popular beliefs that the universe had a beginning, have been shown [through science of course] to be false...

[JoeyKnothead]

Theist: Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible.

Atheist: Yet you require no illogical tag when you propose an uncaused god we can't observe as the cause of a universe we do observe.
_______________________________________
______________ ________________
_______________________________________


: As we should already agree together, since for the present, science informs us that the universe had a beginning, we have to apply the argument "Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible." to that which has a beginning.

Gods come in all shapes and sizes and there are probably myths about gods who had beginnings and gods who's lives could be ended.

However, there is also the myth of the GOD who had no beginning and in that, is the root-cause of all things which do have beginnings.

Therefore;

As an observer, the theist is correct in this case.
"Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible" does not apply to a GOD who has always existed.

That said, nor would it apply to a universe which has always existed...once the popular beliefs that the universe had a beginning, have been shown [through science of course] to be false...

The Big Bang offers the implication of a beginning, but doesn't allow us a means to confirm any real or potential prior form, nor the age thereof.

The theist looks at the universe and sees god/s.

The realist looks at the universe and sees the universe.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #546]

The realist looks at the universe and sees the universe.

I have added that expression to my ComList and N2N documents.

I didn't mention 'the realist' in my post, because I thought the symbol filled that need nicely...

Theist: Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible.

Atheist: Yet you require no illogical tag when you propose an uncaused god we can't observe as the cause of a universe we do observe.
_______________________________________
______________ ________________
_______________________________________


Realist: As we should already agree together, since for the present, science informs us that the universe had a beginning, we have to apply the argument "Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible." to that which has a beginning.

Gods come in all shapes and sizes and there are probably myths about gods who had beginnings and gods who's lives could be ended.

However, there is also the myth of the GOD who had no beginning and in that, is the root-cause of all things which do have beginnings.

Therefore;

As an observer, the theist is correct in this case.
"Self-causation is illogical and, therefore, not possible" does not apply to a GOD who has always existed.

That said, nor would it apply to a universe which has always existed...once the popular beliefs that the universe had a beginning, have been shown [through science of course] to be false...

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #546]

The Big Bang offers the implication of a beginning, but doesn't allow us a means to confirm any real or potential prior form, nor the age thereof.

The Realist: That sucks.
We will just have to go with the implication then, until some way is discovered where the universe allows for us to see otherwise...
Said.

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]