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?

[Diogenes]

There is no such thing as a scientific "theistic evolutionary account." It does not exist as a scientific theory, but a theological one. "Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory."

I agree with you. Seriously. I agree with you. There is also no such thing as a scientific “atheistic evolutionary account”. Both the atheistic evolutionary account and the theistic evolutionary account are philosophical declarations, not scientific theories. They share in declaring the scientific theory of evolution.

Now you are playing with the word "atheistic." We don't refer to evolution as "atheistic" even tho' it does not reference, or need to account for a god. YOU are the one who keeps using the illogical (and perhaps redundant) term "dozens of times" as you admitted. Evolution makes no reference to God. When you continue to use this made up phrase "atheistic evolution," you appear to be claiming biologists specifically avoid referring to a god as if that is some kind of bias.

I try to avoid the use of both "atheist" and "atheistic" because 1) they can be used to mean different things and can be twisted to be used as a sword or shield; and 2) the use of "a-theism" implies theism is the default position. It isn't. This is a historical holdover to ancient times when most people attributed natural events to their gods.

"Atheistic evolution" makes about as much sense as "atheistic home construction" or "atheistic driving" or "atheistic" chemistry or physics. It is both silly and an illiterate use of language.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #579]

It says there is a God behind that scientific, observable process. Science only tells us what the process is, not if there is anything else behind it or not.

Science also tells us what we can do with it, which in turn "shows" us a possible unobserved thing behind it.

If there is something behind it [a cause] and if that cause is mindful [intelligent, creative et al] then we can agree to call that something a GOD - at least in relation to us herein the STU...we do not know if it is GODs all the way up - in that we do not know if that which created this, was also created, or not.

My question is whether we can ascertain the nature of the creator of the STU to the point where we rule out the possibility of their being intelligent creative entities who created the creator of our STU - because many theists opinion strongly that there are not.

Now we might both agree that the answer to the question should not matter because we are not dealing with the notion of the politics of "The GODS" but with the notion of existing within a created thing/created things and the practicalities of interaction between the Human and the Creator-GOD and what that actually even means in ways we can prove to each other.

One can point another to the Bible, but in what manner can we gain true information about the nature of this particular GOD re this particular Universe and our place within it, by pouring over it's pages?

What we have therein is a collection of stories about individuals who claim to have had experience with this Creator-GOD on occasions, for reasons.

Today those stories are locked and bound into a formal thing and when I read "In the beginning GOD created" my modern knowledge easily equates that with another theory and interprets that as "GOD Simulated" as it makes the rest of the Bible much easier to understand from that premise and is in no way contradicting the word "Created".

So the question "Do We Exist Within a Creation" is the same as the question "Do We Exist Within a Simulation?"

If one accepts the atheist world-view then the answer is "No - because the STU doesn't need the extra "godidit" layer in order to explain its existence."

If one accepts the theist world view, then the answer is "Yes - because the STU cannot have simply appeared magically out of no thing - no where."

Simply put, until we can show that we exist within a creation/simulation, we cannot be pointing at the nature of a creator and declare "Here 'tis in all His Glory!" but we can read the stories and get some kind of picture...and there are far more stories of that kind, outside the Bible than within it.

Not to say that the Bible is therefore useless as a group of points referencing a point...an overall commonly shared point re the STU...

Simulation Theory has the power to explain seeming inconsistencies in the Biblical rendition of the set up of the STU, as well as the creator(s) involved in said process, as well as miracles and magic, the sun stopping for a day, flood, fires, mythological beings ...essentially Simulation Theory has the power to explain The Mind...WHY The Mind [intelligent, creative et al] exists...



Do you agree?

[brunumb]

Science looks for truth via observable physical/natural/material evidence. As a non-physical/supernatural/immaterial entity, there could never be anything for science to report on God. One has to bring philosophical arguments to bear with the science to get to the non-physical/supernatural/immaterial or a belief that no such things exist.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Now, it’s quite possible that the most rational response (not answer, but response) to any question is “I don’t know” or “we can’t know”. I’ve shared why I don’t think that is the case with this question.

So you reject a rational answer for a comforting answer.

Not at all. I’ve given reasons I think those are irrational answers for the current question under discussion. I’m open to moving that discussion forward, if you want to respond to those reasons.

It's NOT irrational to tell the truth about not knowing something, when somebody doesn't know that something.

You use the Kalam argument as a 'logical' means of asserting the universe is caused and non-eternal, when the fact is that we simply don't know that to be the case. Then you use that same illogic to assert a god you can't show exists is immune to the very properties you place, without evidence, on the universe.

This is what's so troubling with creationists...

When confronted with fact, they disregard those facts and continue to assert their illogic is Truth(tm). When myth is mightier truth, we can stake no claim to rational, or logical thought. Well that, and they vote.

I'm certain the observer's well aware now that you'll cotton you to no fact that dispels your god myth.

Now it's just a waste of my limited time trying to pull your thinkinking into the modern age.

Have a good day.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #580]

I’m sorry for the confusion. What I’m saying is that the “stuff” that makes up our space-time universe began to exist, rather than being eternal. That “stuff” could have gone through various states prior to the big bang. Thus, the big bang state could have a prior state, but the whole space-time shebang didn’t. I have supported this claim, in this thread, I believe. There are two philosophical arguments that support premise 2 of the Kalam cosmological argument that we have talked about in this thread.

My opinion is that it must have, because otherwise we only have 'magic' and that is no great argument, because some thing [the STU in this case] cannot derive from no thing.

In the view I’m arguing for, while the space-time universe (as a whole, not its current state) had no prior state (i.e., began to exist), it only “comes from nothing” in the sense of material causation (not efficient causation).

My question is whether we can ascertain the nature of the creator of the STU to the point where we rule out the possibility of their being intelligent creative entities who created the creator of our STU - because many theists opinion strongly that there are not.

I think the point (if the Kalam is sound) is about the ultimate creator, whether or not there was a chain between it and the immediate personal cause of the space-time universe.

One can point another to the Bible, but in what manner can we gain true information about the nature of this particular GOD re this particular Universe and our place within it, by pouring over it's pages?

…

I think this question comes further down the line from what I’ve committed to discussing in this thread and would, ultimately, be a distraction from that and could cause confusion. I’d rather pursue this, if you want, in another thread.

[The Tanager]

Now you are playing with the word "atheistic." We don't refer to evolution as "atheistic" even tho' it does not reference, or need to account for a god. YOU are the one who keeps using the illogical (and perhaps redundant) term "dozens of times" as you admitted. Evolution makes no reference to God. When you continue to use this made up phrase "atheistic evolution," you appear to be claiming biologists specifically avoid referring to a god as if that is some kind of bias.

I’ll try to say what I’ve said in a different way to clear up the misunderstanding. I’m not saying evolution is atheistic. I’m saying there are atheistic (and theistic) worldviews that espouse the truth of evolutionary theory as part of their worldview.

One thing these worldviews do is explain features of reality, such as morality. What I’ve called an “atheistic evolutionary account of morality” is just that. It’s an atheistic worldview account that believes evolutionary theory explains morality. That’s not science; it’s philosophy. This thing you keep thinking is a comment on the science is not; it’s a comment on the philosophical view of morality we have been discussing within atheistic worldviews that appeal to evolutionary theory for its claims.

[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.

[The Tanager]

It's NOT irrational to tell the truth about not knowing something, when somebody doesn't know that something.

I didn’t say it was. I have given reasons to think “we can’t know” is an irrational response to the question “why is there something rather than nothing.” I think the rational position is that we can know the answer, for the reasons I’ve mentioned.

As to the “I don’t know the answer,” that may be truthful, but when confronted with the various options and supports (as I have given), I think holding on to that isn’t a rational response.

You use the Kalam argument as a 'logical' means of asserting the universe is caused and non-eternal, when the fact is that we simply don't know that to be the case.

If it is a fact, then refute the premises of the argument instead of just asserting that your belief is a fact.

[brunumb]

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?

[JoeyKnothead]

It's NOT irrational to tell the truth about not knowing something, when somebody doesn't know that something.

I didn’t say it was. I have given reasons to think “we can’t know” is an irrational response to the question “why is there something rather than nothing.” I think the rational position is that we can know the answer, for the reasons I’ve mentioned.

As to the “I don’t know the answer,” that may be truthful, but when confronted with the various options and supports (as I have given), I think holding on to that isn’t a rational response.

You use the Kalam argument as a 'logical' means of asserting the universe is caused and non-eternal, when the fact is that we simply don't know that to be the case.

If it is a fact, then refute the premises of the argument instead of just asserting that your belief is a fact.

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.

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.

But ya see, that don't work for folks trying to present it as a 'logical proof'. They need to lock you into only the answer they deem acceptable to the question, cause to accept a rational response that confounds their whole argument's just too dang apple cart upending.

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.