The argument is valid but its first premise is false (or at least hasn't been proven to be true). — Michael
We say that prayers being answered is the effect, and God's existence is the cause of this effect. God's existence causes prayers to be answered. However, it's an inverse fallacy to say that if prayers are answered then God exists. — Metaphysician Undercover
So you are saying that your prayers might still be answered even if God does not exist? So that an atheist could be justified in praying? — Leontiskos
So you are saying that your prayers might still be answered even if God does not exist? So that an atheist could be justified in praying? — Leontiskos
None of that matters. Just assume that the premise is true. The conclusion is still (superficially) counterintuitive. — Michael
The issue concerns making sense of the argument's validity, not proving or disprove its soundness. — Michael
There are all sorts of hypothetical entities that could answer prayers; devils, angels, fairies, wizards, extremely advanced aliens, the universe branching into a new timeline in accordance to one's will, etc. There's no reason to believe that it can only be the working of some sort of monotheistic creator deity (and certainly no reason to believe that it can only be the working of a specific religion's deity). — Michael
The problem is that we never know for sure whether or not something other than A might bring about the occurrence of B. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.