Does God really answer prayers?


Why do you believe we deserve to be created directly into heaven?

Well I’m not going to continue to play this game of trying to research an counter an argument that you won’t take the time to explain on your own. So here is an article on the Euthryphro dilemma. You tell me where Karlo got it wrong and we can discuss it.

Why is it in my best interest. Wouldn’t my own prosperity and survival be primary in my best interest?

Yep plenty of pain here. Can’t remember the last day I had a day not in pain. Plenty of misery as well. Writing to you good folks is about the only free time I get in a day. There is no greater misery than taking care of ailing parents and knowing there is nothing you can do for them, but be there.

Which brings us back to the last statement. If there is no moral law giver please explain how me giving up my life for my parents in my best interest?

Agree, and this is the way it should be. It is up to us and I see nothing wrong with God setting it up that way.

Because there are others not like us who don’t accept morality and they are the ones breaking it. Although they are not totally to blame. I’m sure we have a hand in it as well.


Have a Happy Thanksgiving,

God Bless


The truth is short and not what most people want to hear.

Does he answer the majority of prayers? As in, how an atheist is trying to define it; with a physical, observable action that changes the person or environment in question in a recordable way?

No. Almost never.

People do seem to like to define God these days as a hippie deity who has no qualities other than peace and love, in the form of he cuddles everyone and carries them through life as long as they pray.

I’m not trying to be condescending but real life? It just isn’t like that. And no, quite right; Atheists and nones DONT believe. Which is why reality is so powerful to them. Because even they can’t refute it.

Every question about God from atheists is the same story. ‘Physical proof please’.

Not such an unreasonable request in their minds - as that’s all their life is. Physical proof.


Somtimes we do know, sometimes we don’t.

Like a father, God gives what is good for us. He sees in the long term and for our own good. And us, we are like little children of the loving Father - there may be things we want and need but may not necessarily be good for us in the long run. The Father’s vision is up to the eternal life, not just the earthly, while for us we mostly see things in the former, which for us is more tangible and affect us in our practical lives.


Why not? Before we are created, we are innocent. We are even free of the “original sin”, which is one of the most nonsensical ideas of Christianity. But “deserve” has nothing to do with agape. God allegedly loves everyone to the same degree. Too bad that this alleged love does not manifest itself in actions.

Present the URL, and we can discuss it. A very short explanation: “A loving creator would never allow unnecessary, gratuitous suffering.” And since we, humans can already prevent a lot of suffering which God allowed and/or directly caused, those sufferings are gratuitous - by definition, because God could get rid of them. (If we can, then God could do it as well.)

Because we are both social animals and individuals. This is simple biology. Don’t forget that “morality” is based upon biology. If killing would be a simple reversible process, it would not be considered a serious offense. As individuals we might try to maximize our own well being, even at the expense of others. And maybe we might even get away with it - at least for a while. But that is a stupid survival strategy. (You need to study game theory for the mathematical foundation.) The simple reason becomes obvious when the “proverbial substance” hits the fan, and we need help from others. It is a good idea to spread the good will, and count of the principle of reciprocity - without any reference to some God.

That might be your opinion. But I see a lot of problems with this. First of all, we certainly lack the power to deal with ALL the problems, and God does not come to the rescue even when we do our best - but still are powerless.

Not true. This world is the result of an inferior “design” (or lack of design). The only one who rightfully gets blamed (or praised?) is the designer. (If such a designer exists at all, and that is very far from being proven.) Remember, praise and blame must always be directed to the one, who has the knowledge and the power to do something about it.

Ah… almost forgot. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your loved ones, too.


Even if this would be true (and there is no evidence for it), it does not follow that God always acts in our best interest. God’s alleged “benevolence” is just an assumption, and the tangible evidence does not support it. If we take the eternal life into consideration, the only loving way to deal with us would be creating everyone directly into heaven.


I guess that is because you do not understand or do not agree that God is love. He gives us freewill, the greatest thing a human could want. It is like a double edge sword of course, our decision decides our future.

God can give us heaven directly but that’s not the way it was.


And that is the incontrovertible proof, that God is NOT “love”. Love always acts in the BEST interest of the loved ones.


Sorry. Can’t buy that. We never know if our prayers are answered–or if it’s just coincidence, or natural forces at work (we pray for rain, but it was going to rain anyway…). There is no way to know, unless of course you pray for some actual miracle (which I have yet to see or read about) like “Bring my father back from the dead” or “I lost an eye in an accident–give me another eye!” It’s always problematical stuff…my back hurts, I have a headache, cancer goes into remission, etc. etc.

God may well know the long term and what’s for our own good. However, I don’t believe he intervenes in the world. The idea of an “active” God just has way too many problems to be believable–by me anyway. And of course the logical conclusion–if you actually believe God is going to respond to prayer, but in His own way–would be simply admit that man is totally ignorant and not capable of asking for anything in particular. You might pray “Your will be done” or something, but since God’s will is going to be done anyway (unless we do evil)…pointless?

I think we’ve crossed paths before. I’m not going to convince you, you’re not going to convince me. So let’s leave it at that.


Not what God said though. He will listen to our prayers and answer accordingly. You don’t have to believe that but God assured us he will hear our prayers if we say it in Jesus name.


You can say as you like, it does not change the loving God he is.


You’re looking for a road to Damascus experience, but even if it came, you wouldn’t be convinced. Over five hundred people claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. Over five hundred people claim that 3000 lives were lost due to the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001. Which one are you more sure of? Do you believe people with videotapes before you believe people with testimony?

One of the purposes of prayer is to change the person praying.

Without God, I’d lead a less productive life, and quite possibly a shorter one.


The answer is exactly the same as it is to those who deny the Communion of Saints. We do it because it works. We do it because it is right.

Those who don’t simply don’t have a prayer.


Blind faith in its purest form.

It is too late now… I saw this part before you removed it.

Are these two one mutually exclusive? Moreover, you assume that I genuinely do not want to experience God’s love. This attitude is genuinely despicable, and earns you nothing but scorn and contempt. Besides, my preferred “Road to Damascus” experience would be just getting answers to a few questions, not a lightning strike.

When I see something along these lines, I would love to least out, grab him/her by the neck, and beat the living “crap” out of the one who has the audacity to say it. How dare you declare what is or what is not sufficient for someone else?

Of course. Testimony is the least reliable method of gaining knowledge. It is no wonder that hearsay “evidence” is not allowed in serious cases, precisely it is unreliable.

That is called “meditative” prayer, and there is nothing wrong with it. You can meditate over Russell’s teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an empty milk bottle, and every one of those meditations can change you. This thread is about “supplicative” prayers when the supplicant actually asks for something.


Why is your reaction so violent, wanting to grab someone by the neck and beat the living crap out of somebody? Can’t a person hold a belief you don’t like?

I don’t believe you’d be convinced by a road to Damascus experience because it’s already happened. That’s why I explained Jesus’s resurrection was such an experience for all time, but you seem to doubt it. If I’m wrong, and you do believe in the resurrection, let me know. As for testimony, how can we believe much at all since much of what we have learned is hearsay? It may be written down hearsay but it’s still a tradition of passing information from one generation to the next.

If you want to experience God’s love through eternity, it stands to reason you would become a follower of the Catholic Church. I changed my post because of the circular logic that I thought you’d pick up on. You might have said, why would I believe in God’s eternal love, when its earthly equivalent is so sorely lacking?


Plus you can ask for something for days and then realize you don’t want it in the first place. That would be an example of supplicate prayer changing the person praying.


Simple, because to claim knowledge about someone else’s intentions is extremely rude. And rudeness can only be fought by strong words.

No, it does not “stand to reason”. The church is just an institution composed of human beings. It is a self-proclaimed “authority”.


Thank you. To me I take that as a compliment. I know I have faith but at time it is not that much and often left much to be desire. I have full belief that God is love though and nobody can take that away from me.


Get real. It’s not rude to make a claim. If I see somebody standing at a crosswalk with his hand out, fingertips pointing away from him, I would say this person wants to cross the street. I wouldn’t say this person may have a cramp in his hand and is trying to flag down a doctor. We constantly give signals all day long, and you have signalled a disbelief in God. So your intentions have been made known. But having said that, I should add that if Jesus is not God, the most logical belief system is the atheist one. I can see why somebody would be an atheist.


I am glad you do. Happy turkey day. :slight_smile:

That would be fine. You can make inferences from what you see. But you (and many others) keep making claims about “why” - the internal state of affairs of the one you just observed. And that is not something you can make claims about.

If I say that I would be willing to accept a certain sign, it is extremely rude to say: “Nah, you would not”. Just like the old insult: “For someone who does not have faith, no evidence is sufficient”. These imply either stupidity or dishonesty on my part. And I react strongly to either one of these insinuations.

Right. I have no quarrel with that. Of course it does not need to go the Jesus, all the alleged attributes of God are problematic. But the most problematic one is “benevolence” - because it (or more precisely the lack of it) can be observed right here and now.


For a believer, nothing happen by coincidence with God. We have witnessed miracles that scientists have no answers to.

For non-believers, they can say it is a coincidence or at most, due to luck. After all they do not believe in God.

Just to be clear there is no issue about convincing anyone here, just answering the topic of the thread from an individual perspective.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit