Kenneth Winsmann On The Three Problems For Testing Petitionary Prayers
Kenneth responded to my post meant for honest Christians on how to test their prayers objectively. He did so by presenting three problems which I responded to each one of them. [Edit: These three problems were first argued by apologist Trent Horn, so when I argue against them I'm arguing against Trent Horn].
Kenneth:
Kenneth:
I have a few questions about your test that I have been developing since completing WIBA. I have three challenges to your test and would love to see what you think here.My response:
1. The problem of interpreting results:
Imagine that every single prayer was answered. Would that mean that God exists? Or that I had developed some kind of new age focus technique that controls reality? A positive karma shield? Or maybe Satan is answering these prayers to fool me and keep me from becoming a muslim? Or perhaps Stephen Laws Evil God answered them to bring about some greater evil. What conclusions would I draw?
What if all of them fail completely. Nothing is answered. 100% negative response. What does that mean? Is God mad at me for testing Him? Is Satan trying to crush my faith? Is it all for a greater good? Bad Karma? Again, no answers.
If the hits and misses run right about equal what would that mean? If I concluded that God does not exist, wouldn't that be committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
Albany is in New York/' I am in New York/ Therefore I am in Albany
Easy to catch the fallacy right? But now run it with prayer
If God goes not exist my prayers will not be reliably answered/ my prayers have not been reliably answered/ therefore God does not exist
Same fallacy.