why your prayers often, if not always fail

[Simon Moon]

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?

[brewer]

Weren't prayers fulfilled more frequently when there was an accompanying human sacrifice?

[arewethereyet]

Weren't prayers fulfilled more frequently when there was an accompanying human sacrifice?

I have an idea who we can put first on the list if a sacrifice is required.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Weren't prayers fulfilled more frequently when there was an accompanying human sacrifice?

I have an idea who we can put first on the list if a sacrifice is required.

That seems a little harsh just for recommending a television show...

Boru

[arewethereyet]

I have an idea who we can put first on the list if a sacrifice is required.

That seems a little harsh just for recommending a television show...

Boru

Perhaps not first but definitely in the top three.

[no one]

brewer:
Weren't prayers fulfilled more frequently when there was an accompanying human sacrifice?

arewethereyet:
I have an idea who we can put first on the list if a sacrifice is required.

BSB4:
That seems a little harsh just for recommending a television show...

Humans have been sacrificed for much less.

[Drich]

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.

Asked and answered int he video in God answers all prayer in the afirmitive.

However 98% of the efforts made in the name of prayer isn't prayer as defined by Christ.

You might as well be making a video on, "Why your lucky amulets often, if not always fail to work".

indeed if real amulets worked, and 08% of what was called an amulet wasn't real.

You still don't seem to get the use and the reliability of: rational thinking, skepticism, and valid and sound logic.

AKA if I have come to a different conclusion, I am not thinking with in your little box of perception. granted/good.

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:

did you watch the video?
why would you assume NONE of these points were not addressed?

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.

asked and answered in the video. !/2 the video is on this subject. it identifies point in the bible where when Jesus was asked how to pray, he gave the same answer. broke down that prayer into a outline you could use to speak to your own situation.

Then:

1. Demonstrate a god exists

that is the point of Real prayer. it is to combine you with the Holy Spirit. in essence the purpose of Real prayer is to sit you down with God withyour own direct access. There is no better proof for any one person than to experience God one on one. (explained in the video)

2. Demonstrate said god is a personal god, who actually interacts within the universe

we did this by introducing the purpose of prayer "what Jesus has you ask for in his name."
What in luke 11 God promises to give even if not because he loves you but for the sake of pure repetition.

3. Demonstrate that this god has the ability, and the desire, to answer prayers

did that by recounting my own experiences, and showing these are not offered to me uniquely but to everyone.

4. Demonstrate that it does actually answer prayers

have done by sharing what has been done for me, and describing how he calls us out of the boat on to the water with him.. and if we make it out to him, we know it could only be God to kept us above the water. and if we fail like peter did and begin to sink beneath the waves we will then know only God could pull us out.

5. Demonstrate that a reliable source for what this god requires in order to answer prayers, exists

again pray yield one and only one result and that is the Holy Spirit. When you turn your life over (as outlined in the video) The presences of the Spirit becomes your proof.

6. Demonstrate, if these requirements are adhered to, the rate at which prayers succeed.

id met on his terms provided by luke 11, he promises a 100% return on every prayer. Again even if he does not love you your repetition will encourage him to answer your Prayer if on his terms.

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.

which is why all of these questions were predetermined and answered in the orginal video even if you did not see them as a 'rational person.'

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?

you assume too much.
You are right that no one has made it past step one as God is not to be summoned. However God allows prvisos and instructions for us to find our way to him. That way he can cull out/weed out the lazy and the disinterested, if they can not be bothered to try and meet God on his terms. Do this and we are granted direct access to God. no priest, prophets or saints needed.

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?

God is not the only one answering petitions.

If someone prays for some financial help, and 5 years later, they get a raise at work, does that count as an answered prayer?

as per the video not even a prayer.

How do you explain the fact that prayers are answered at the exact same rate as chance?

100% is the chance ratio?

oh, that's right you did watch 10 seconds of the video, and just assumed you could rationally think your way through anything I had to say, because in your box (scientific world view) there is nothing I can say you have not already heard...

Thing is, you have no clue what prayer is and you handling of the topic proves at best your understanding is that of the RC church 1500 years ago/what they wanted you to believe then.

This is not what the video is about as this is not the prayer described in the bible.

watch the video it is only 8 mins and I promise a 100% different view than what you wrongly supposed here. If you come off defending you initial primise (dark ages version of prayer) then I am just going to ignore your straw man. Educate yourself with the material so you can Speak topically/rationally as any human having a honest discussion should seek out and do.

[Abaddon_ire]

<snip for brevity>

I watched the whole lot.

Without doubt it is a contender for the "Most Pointless YT Video Ever" award.

A goalless stream of conciousness ramble that seems to have no destination in mind (if there even is a mind behind it) peppered with a copious amount of bald assertions which, once made are abandoned without further mention, accompanied by a montage of still images which are not connected in any way to the (lack of) content.

It was, frankly, awful. It was as though the video had dimly heard of "production values" and wanted nothing to do with those.

It was so horrible that I would require you to pay me in sedatives to watch another. I would have to be drugged to endure such utter crap again.

If this were Rotten Tomatoes, you would have the distinction of being rejected for fear that this next level crap would break their website.

How about the audio presentation then? Well, I have no idea who thinks a dull lazy boring monotone is even vaguely interesting to anyone. The narration sounded like some bloke had been paid to read some screed and could not wait to cash his cheque and get the hell out of there. And this is the one success of the video. I couldn't wait to get out of there either.

Moving along to the actual content. Why? The content is irrelevant. Because the content is entirely lost in the continuous overload of utter BS of the presentation. It is actually quite difficult to even make out the sentences that are apparently spoken by a rather large and disinterested bee.

Is that sufficient constructive criticism or shall I move right along to the actual content?

[Drich]

<snip for brevity>

I watched the whole lot.

Without doubt it is a contender for the "Most Pointless YT Video Ever" award.

A goalless stream of conciousness ramble that seems to have no destination in mind (if there even is a mind behind it) peppered with a copious amount of bald assertions which, once made are abandoned without further mention, accompanied by a montage of still images which are not connected in any way to the (lack of) content.

It was, frankly, awful. It was as though the video had dimly heard of "production values" and wanted nothing to do with those.

It was so horrible that I would require you to pay me in sedatives to watch another. I would have to be drugged to endure such utter crap again.

If this were Rotten Tomatoes, you would have the distinction of being rejected for fear that this next level crap would break their website.

How about the audio presentation then? Well, I have no idea who thinks a dull lazy boring monotone is even vaguely interesting to anyone. The narration sounded like some bloke had been paid to read some screed and could not wait to cash his cheque and get the hell out of there. And this is the one success of the video. I couldn't wait to get out of there either.

Moving along to the actual content. Why? The content is irrelevant. Because the content is entirely lost in the continuous overload of utter BS of the presentation. It is actually quite difficult to even make out the sentences that are apparently spoken by a rather large and disinterested bee.

Is that sufficient constructive criticism or shall I move right along to the actual content?

so you did... like the video?

I'm not too sure as this disconnected rant could have been cut and pasted from the comment section of a bernie sanders speech. nothing here specifically ties my video to a seemingly plagiarized or perhaps so stereotypically used rant, it just seems like I read this somewhere before over, and over and over again... which is not saying too much as most of you are on a group think wave length anyway. (you all think alike and so too insult like a clone too)

So in the future when critiquing an individual's work it is often good or at least sometimes considered proof you are not just cutting and pasting from someone smarter than you, on say a rotten tomatoes review to include something from the video. maybe even a comment and a time index stamp. this adds authenticity and a bit more sting for the person who's ego is the fuel for their public video efforts.

generalization are dangerous specifically the one's you chose "speaks in generalizations." It is clear you assumed there was no way to support my assertions, It is clear you did not understand or did not watch what you said you did, especially when I give not only a word study but quote and screen capture the greek reference material used to define what prayer is verses supplication. which was the crux of the whole subject. Identifying what most of you think of as prayer as infact supplication and not prayer at all.

another critique of your critique is how you judge teaching methods. You clearly showed you hand when you claimed you could not follow the point. this is more of a critique on your cognitive ability for everyone who did get the point and have been arguing it for going on two weeks now in other forums. there is no shame is not being able to follow a point, however you look foolish and hypocritical when other do what you claim can not be done with the material provided. And yes i did leave several topics open ended as this is the purpose of the video. it is not the final word buta opening thread to a conversation. Which again is a superior teaching method as it forces thinking people to push their understanding of a subject to engage in the discussion.

As far as the monotone.. I unlike most youtubers am not seeking notoriety or celebrity therefore my voice should not add to nor take away from the subject matter or information provided. the purpose of the video is to communicate a subject matter more clearly with the use of visual aids.