Aw, thank Lib, ya big lug. I don’t blame you either.
pan
“For me, prayer alone doesn’t do a thing but prayer with God, with Jesus, is what is effective.”
—Does that mean prayers of Jews, Muslims, etc., would NOT be effective for them?
“It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” (Matt. 4:7)
—Not even with my yummy raspberry chocolate layer cake? Hmmmmm? Just one slice?
This may seem to contradict what Lib is saying, but I think that you have to accept Jesus into your heart. Once he’s in your heart, then your level of faith may change a bit due to things going on in your life (good or bad), but it will always “be enough”.
And if you want a prayer that works everytime (if you mean it):
How about when you ask for forgivness from sin?
This is a sincere question, and it’s not one that people who say “Does prayer work?” have answered. If I pray, and what I pray for doesn’t happen, does that mean that the prayer wasn’t answered, or that it was answered “no”, and how would you be able to distinguish between the two? Alternately, how can you distinguish a granted prayer from something that would have happened anyway. It seems like we need some sort of methodology to answer this question.
I think that quite a few people who believe in prayer would claim that they have some sort of sense of what God is saying to them, as well as what he’s doing, so presumably, they would hear him say ‘no’ (as opposed to stony silence).
dlb
That’s the truest statement in this entire thread.
Well, this was bound to come up sooner or later:
From the Onion
Until the day it happens to me…
Is it legitimate to say that God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no?
I really don’t think so - certainly not in the context of the OP. If someone tells me that because they have faith (or a particular brand of faith) that God answers all of their prayers, then the implication is that God grants whatever they ask for. To leave the second part of the claim unstated (…“but sometimes the answer is no”) is disingenuous at best.
It is a common trick of con artists and hustlers throughout history to say things that are technically true but to leave out details that would completely change the meaning:
SUCKER: So, what kind of condition is this used car in?
SALESMAN: This car, just like every one of our fine pre-owned cars, has undergone a rigorous - and I mean rigorous - 21 point inspection. [mumbling under his breath] of course this piece of junk flunked 19 of those points.
SUCKER: Ahh, so I should feel pretty good about this one?
SALESMAN: Mmmmm…
It seems to me that this whole claim is really nothing more than an artifact of our language or a play on words based on the ambiguity of the word “answer”. An answer means either a response (any response) or the correct response. To the question “What is the capitol of Texas?” an answer might be “Chicago”. It’s the wrong answer, but it is an answer. In the same manner if the prayer is “God, make the bell ring so I won’t have to get up in front of the class” and the answer is “No”, then I suppose you can claim that God answered your prayer, but it’s very misleading to say “I prayed for the bell to ring, and God answered my prayer.” One would have to question the motives behind anyone who made such a claim in light of the facts.
The fundamental question presented by the OP should probably be restated to eliminate the ambiguity inherent in the word answer. How’s this: When God is petitioned in prayer, does he grant the prayer’s specific wishes more often than would be expected from chance?
From The Onion:
“For as long as he can remember, 7-year-old Timmy Yu has had one precious dream: From the bottom of his heart, he has hoped against hope that God would someday hear his prayer to walk again. Though many thought Timmy’s heavenly plea would never be answered, his dream finally came true Monday, when the Lord personally responded to the wheelchair-bound boy’s prayer with a resounding no.”
Right. The “God always answers prayers but sometimes the answer is no” claim makes a better punch line than a legitimate philosophical or theological position.
Yeah, but how could that be independently measured?
I don’t understand why you need measurment to believe something. The proof of God isn’t going to be found in some complex mathematical proof, so why are you mixing science with religion?
“I don’t believe God exists.”
“But cykrider says she does. And why would cykrider lie? He seems so sincere!”
“Oh, then I’ll change my mind. That’s all the proof I need. God does exist.” 
Libertarian wrote:
Um …
“Oh no! Your house just burned down!”
Lib: “God has answered my prayers!”
“Oh no! A car just ran over your wife and kids!”
Lib: “God has answered my prayers!”
“Oh no! Five million people just renounced Christianity!”
Lib: “God has answered my prayers!”
Why don’t we re-word this: “I can be a wonderful, loving human without some uppity deity taking up residence in my body or Spirit.”
Yeah, it’s a metaphysical state. God is incapable of not loving someone. He sends certain people to Hell forever because He loves them THIS much. [spreads arms wide]
Lib, what gives you the right to re-define words like “death” to your own liking? Re-defining words to suit yourself only leads to poor communication and requires you to spend massive amounts of time explaining what you mean.
Also, if my body is ever gravely ill (must remember to use Lib-speak so he’ll know what I’m saying…), please do not pray for me the same as you did for Dawson. I do not want what happened to him to happen to me. I do not believe Dawson (or anyone else) went to Heaven or Hell. I believe the life I am currently experiencing is the only life I will ever know. I therefore want it to last as long as possible. If your prayers have even the tiniest, most microscopic chance of shortening that life by even a nanosecond, I respectfully request that you never, ever pray for me. Either God ignored you and let Dawson’s body perish or He granted your request that he let Dawson’s body perish. Neither possibility appeals to me.
That reasoning is so circular, it resembles a Slinky[sup]TM[/sup]. “God always gives the right answer. How do we know this? Because God knows best. How do we know that? Because God always gives the right answer!”
Perhaps. But in the meantime, she suffers. Permitting such suffering when God has the power to alleviate it is cruelty through indifference.
But people don’t view time as God does. We remember the past, experience the present and can only guess about the future. No human being knows with certainty what will happen in the distant future. Telling my mother that in God’s perspective she’s already with my father again, does nothing for her because she can only experience the world from her own perspective.
**
Nope. Not true. Natural law has many limitations. One cannot build a self-aware organism using tree bark, bird shit and barbed wire, for example.
Oh, really? How?
**
I’d prefer Halle Berry.
Tracer
Delightful red herrings, thank you! 
But I have petitioned God for none of that.
However, I did petition you, as you recall. 
Musicat
I disagree. To this day, I don’t believe backaches exist. Why should I?
Jab
[optimism waning…]
Oh, I agree. But you can’t do it without the very source of Love. [shrug…] Don’t know nothin’ 'bout no uppity deities.
God sends no one anywhere. Am I “sending” you here to answer my posts?
Um, that particular redefinition took place a coupla millenia ago: “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die.” — Jesus
Apparently the false dichotomy does.
You silly boy, of course God is tautological. What axiom isn’t? Why is it true that A is A? Why does a definition circle back to the word it defines?
Power? God has the power to make you believe in Him. Should He?
You’re likely right. Not everyone “gets” Flatland.
“Anything is possible” is a figure of speech. In this instance, it was an attempt to approach a civil dialog with you wherein we respect one another’s points of view. Obviously, not everything is possible in this universe. But with God, all things are possible.
[shrug…]
Dunno. Once again, I was acknowledging the validity of your reference frame. You’re the one who said, “So the brain manufactures a hallucination of the sight or sound or even smell of the deceased loved one.”
We all will get whatever it is that we prefer. And some of us will blame God when we get it. “Why would God send people to Halle?”
The book of Job addresses those who doubt God’s reasoning. God’s answer is basically:
Did you or can you create a universe?
Did you make the heavens and the Earth?
[Ghostbusters]
Are you a God?
[/Ghostbusters]
If you answered “yes” to any of the above, you may question God. Otherwise, you have no right.
It’s like when you’re a parent, and you child asks “Why?” and you respond with “because I said so.”
If you’d stop looking for scientific evidence, took a leap of faith and let God work with you and through you, I think you’d understand alot better.
Lib, have you ever considered for even a second trying to communicate with the rest of us? If you wish us to understand you, please try to use the common definitions of words, rather than the religious-philosophical-zen-sufi-mystical crap definitions that only you understand. The only one here who thinks that you are talking from a superior level by the circular reasoning and nonsense non-definitions that you use is you. For a lot of us, it’s a complete waste of time.
And before you ascribe this to the “fact” that a lot of us are not enlightened enough, try to remember what the main purpose of communication is-to successfully make someone understand what you are saying, whether they agree with you or not.
Unfortunately this is what always seems to happen with religious discussions. The meanings of words get twisted and stretched until they no longer resemble themselves. So far Libertarian has redefined the words prayer, meditation, answer, and death all just to suit his position. Logic and reason gets lost in a bog of religio-babble, and focus evaporates.
So, berdollos, if I may, let me restate the OP again in a way that is as unambiguous as I can make it: When God is petitioned in prayer, does he grant the prayer’s specific wishes more often than would be expected from chance?
Now let’s be clear. I am not talking about the Oh-God-give-me-strength type of prayer but rather the Oh-God-don’t-let-him-die type. And Libertarian, die means die. If it means something else to you then please use another word.
Who’s logic and reason? A nonbeliever’s? A believer’s? Man’s? God’s? Yours? Would you agree that one could be different from another?
Perhaps you would agree that it would be even clearer if you added a generally speaking value or a particular person value?
We all leave this earth one day. How would you suggest we filter out the “have to’s”?
Libertarian wrote:
Precisely my point. Having your house burn down, or your family get run over, or a mass migration away from Christianity would certainly not be things you would ever ask God for. But even if those things did happen, you would still insist that God had answered your prayers. (jab1 asked you, “Is any answer the right answer when you ask something of God?”, and you responded, “God never chooses to give wrong answers.”
And as you recall, even I, omnipotent as I obviously am, was forced to deny your request, due to the fact that it presented a logical contradiction.