A question about prayer was sent to this writer which pertains to what was called, “the milk jug argument.” It goes something to the likes of: if by praying to God we receive the answers of “Yes,” “No” or “Wait,” we could just as effectively pray to a milk jug since we can assume the same results.
Firstly, in the case of God responding, “No” which is taken to mean that there is no actual, audible, discernible response other than the fact that nothing happens, one may affirm that prayer to God or a milk jug is the same. This is because, we could conclude that neither God nor the milk jug is actually hearing and responding in any way.
However, what of “Yes” and “Wait” (which is a done the road “Yes”)? In such a case we can affirm that God is responding but that the milk jug is not. Why this conclusion is so should become apparent as we proceed upon considering this issue below.
The concept behind this seems to be that since prayers to God are not quantifiable, are not able to produce a guaranteed discernible result, then there is no real way of knowing that God is answering prayer and that thus, we could pray to a milk jug since we also could not discern whether it is answering prayer or not. In other words: prayer is hit or miss as far as we are concerned, as far as our ability to discern its efficacy is concerned.
It appears that too much is being made of prayer as it regards God's existence.
There are two categories of evidence for God's existence:
1) Evidence that we can provide.
2) Evidence that God can provide.
Thus, perhaps as pertains to results: praying to God or praying to a milk jug is the same—as far as yes, no, wait is concerned.
But the fact remains that God is a philosophically necessary being whilst the milk jug is not (same goes for the Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. see here for details).
At bottom:
The reason that the answers to prayers to a milk jug are indiscernible is that a milk jug is not a person, does not display characteristic of personhood, is not volitional, etc.
However, natural theology / general revelation infers from that which creation / nature / the universe implies, that the cause of the universe does, indeed, display characteristic of personhood, is volitional, etc.
In other words, can we prove that God is hearing, contemplating and answering prayer?
Perhaps not.
But can we prove (via arguments) that God is a necessarily existing volitional person with, at least, the potential of doing as much?
Yes (if not “prove” then at least “evidence,” again, via arguments).
A supposed answer to prayer is not where the evidence for God’s existence begins and ends.
Comments