Oh, I don't know...
The law of parsimony and occam's razor seems to cover it. Or another way to put it, entities should not be multiplied without necessity.
In other words, why should we even bother positing a god that is not answering prayers (for any post hoc justification you come up with in your video), than a much greater chance that there is no prayer answering god in the first place.
You might as well be making a video on, "Why your lucky amulets often, if not always fail to work".
You still don't seem to get the use and the reliability of: rational thinking, skepticism, and valid and sound logic.
Here are just some of the hurdles you have to clear in order to come up with some rational reason for why prayers often fail:
Define: what an answered prayer looks like, including; the time frame after the prayer is made does it need to be 'answered' to be considered an answer, how close to the actual prayer does the 'answer' need to adhere in order to be considered an answer.
Then:
1. Demonstrate a god exists
2. Demonstrate said god is a personal god, who actually interacts within the universe
3. Demonstrate that this god has the ability, and the desire, to answer prayers
4. Demonstrate that it does actually answer prayers
5. Demonstrate that a reliable source for what this god requires in order to answer prayers, exists
6. Demonstrate, if these requirements are adhered to, the rate at which prayers succeed.
There are probably more steps, but these give an idea about how a rational person would go about trying to figure out why prayers often fail.
Since no one in the history of humanity has ever made it past step 1., don't you think you are putting the cart before the horse, in your video?
Other possible questions:
If someone prays to a different god than the one you believe exists, and has their prayer answered, does that count as an answered prayer?
If someone prays for some financial help, and 5 years later, they get a raise at work, does that count as an answered prayer?
How do you explain the fact that prayers are answered at the exact same rate as chance?
The law of parsimony and occam's razor seems to cover it. Or another way to put it, entities should not be multiplied without necessity.
In other words, why should we even bother positing a god that is not answering prayers (for any post hoc justification you come up with in your video), than a much greater chance that there is no prayer answering god in the first place.
You might as well be making a video on, "Why your lucky amulets often, if not always fail to work".
You still don't seem to get the use and the reliability of: rational thinking, skepticism, and valid and sound logic.
Here are just some of the hurdles you have to clear in order to come up with some rational reason for why prayers often fail:
Define: what an answered prayer looks like, including; the time frame after the prayer is made does it need to be 'answered' to be considered an answer, how close to the actual prayer does the 'answer' need to adhere in order to be considered an answer.
Then:
1. Demonstrate a god exists
2. Demonstrate said god is a personal god, who actually interacts within the universe
3. Demonstrate that this god has the ability, and the desire, to answer prayers
4. Demonstrate that it does actually answer prayers
5. Demonstrate that a reliable source for what this god requires in order to answer prayers, exists
6. Demonstrate, if these requirements are adhered to, the rate at which prayers succeed.
There are probably more steps, but these give an idea about how a rational person would go about trying to figure out why prayers often fail.
Since no one in the history of humanity has ever made it past step 1., don't you think you are putting the cart before the horse, in your video?
Other possible questions:
If someone prays to a different god than the one you believe exists, and has their prayer answered, does that count as an answered prayer?
If someone prays for some financial help, and 5 years later, they get a raise at work, does that count as an answered prayer?
How do you explain the fact that prayers are answered at the exact same rate as chance?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
