Logical Proof is based upon a True Premise.
The Premise is that We were created with the ability to Pray. If You know You have this ability then it’s True, if You don’t know You have this ability then there is no Proof.
We have this ability because We were created with it to pray to The Creator for whatever reason. Therefore the The Creator God exists because God made Us with this ability to Pray 
.
False.
Having an ability doesn’t imply being created with that ability.
Abilities can be acquired over many generations via evolution, or acquired by an individual via practice, technology or prosthetic enhancement.
So the proof fails at this point.
2 Likes
I guess you don’t have this ability.
That’s an interesting little “proof.” Let’s take it apart carefully.
Structure of the Argument
- Premise: Humans have the ability to pray.
- Claim: If we can pray, it must be because we were created with that ability.
- Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (as the Creator who gave us prayer).
Problems with the Reasoning
1. Question-Begging Premise
- The premise assumes what it sets out to prove.
- Saying “we were created with the ability to pray” already assumes a Creator exists.
- That means the conclusion (God exists) is smuggled into the premise from the start — a textbook example of circular reasoning.
2. Equivocation on “Ability to Pray”
-
What does “ability to pray” mean here?
- If it means ability to form words or thoughts directed toward a being, then it’s just an extension of language and imagination.
- Having the capacity to imagine or address a being doesn’t prove the being is real (e.g., I can pray to Zeus, Odin, or a fictional character).
-
The argument confuses mental capacity with external reality.
3. Anthropocentrism
- The reasoning assumes humans are unique in this “capacity.”
- But animals exhibit ritual, mourning, and proto-religious behaviors. If “prayer-like” behavior implies God made us for it, does that extend to elephants and chimps?
4. Alternative Explanations Ignored
-
Evolutionary psychology provides explanations for prayer-like behaviors:
- Language + agency-detection + social bonding = rituals directed at unseen beings.
-
A trait can have naturalistic origins without needing to posit divine design.
5. The Problem of Exclusivity
- If the “ability to pray” proves the Christian God exists, what about all other cultures that pray to other gods?
- By the same logic, their prayer ability would prove their gods exist.
- The argument cannot discriminate between competing deities — which undermines its force.
Summary of Critique
- The argument is circular (assumes a Creator in its premise).
- It conflates imagination with external reality (ability to pray ≠ proof that God exists).
- It ignores alternative natural explanations.
- It fails to establish which God, if any, prayer points to.
In the end, it’s more a statement of personal conviction than a logical proof.
5 Likes
Oh Well, again Oh Well ( cause the reply needs 11 characters).
1 Like
If you think it’s possible that I don’t have this ability, then I may not have been created with it, your premise is false and your proof fails.
3 Likes
The same type of argument can be used for the truth of anything from fairies and reincarnation to Satanism. Just being capable of thinking or belief about such things certainly does not make them true.
…at least not objectively.
Now you can believe as I do that reality is not exclusively objective (i.e. not completely the same for everyone), and thus there can be non-objective truths and realities which are different for different people. I think this is a much healthier approach to reality where one can not only treat the people of different cultures with respect but even learn from them. …and do this without abandoning ones own culture, religion, and subjective beliefs.
1 Like
Do You identify as a Science(Repeatably of something means it’s true) and of Spiritual Religion type of person believing and being? I am of Born Again of Father, and Father knows all Science.
Science is a methodology based on objective observation, great for finding out new and unexpected things about the universe. But life requires subjective participation (almost the exact opposite) and thus science is quite insufficient for living our lives. That is the purpose and focus of religion. But its subjective nature means religion is naturally diverse and filled with disagreement. Science is good for the objective portion of reality and to be reasonable religion should accept its findings and make its choices for the rest of life compatible with what it has determined - a good beginning at distinguishing good religion from bad religion.
As for me… I was not raised in any religion per se… it was all science (particularly psychology) and western liberalism. Even so I could construct at an early age justification (especially using psychological principles) for most of societies consensus on what was considered ethical or moral, so I know the authoritarian approach claiming God is required for this is not only nonsense but flawed. I went from there to existentialism, in which I found some insight into the meaning of the word “God.” And exploring many different religions I found the greatest truths for me personally in Christianity.
2 Likes
Any particular part of Christianity is your connection to it?
My next step would have been to substitute [some ability] for ‘pray’, since there’s nothing in the ‘proof’ that is specific to praying, but your substitution works just as well.
Not really since I make my own decisions on all doctrinal issues.
I currently attend a church of the Nazarene, and before that it was Vineyard church, and before that Calvary Chapel.
So… I am partial to evangelical Christianity… thus I am Trinitarian, not universalist, and 5 solas Protesant, but I prefer some of the Eastern orthodox ideas on some doctrinal issues like original sin and the atonement, and I reject both Calvinism and Arminianism in favor of open theism (like John Polkinghorne). I take the creed of the first Nicean council 325 AD as the definition of Christianity.
3 Likes
We all individually as Children being Born Again trying to Please Father as Christ and John the Baptist heard from the Sky “This is My Beloved Son, Hear Ye Him”. I have delved into the difference between Judaism and Christianity. There are distinct changes to being Christian, like Punishment (Deuteronomy) and Christ indicating Forgive Seventy times Seven. Forgiving to me is tough, most want to see justice and punishment.
Yeah… I don’t think Christianity is really about either forgiveness or punishment. I think more in terms of the natural logical consequences of our actions and that sin consists of self-destructive habits. So salvation is really about getting rid of these bad habits which will destroy our free will and devour us. In my view, the issue of things like justice and mercy are really the pragmatic psychological effects, such as how cheap forgiveness sends the wrong message that our actions have no consequences. I think the fundamental message of all religion that our actions have consequences which cannot be escaped, and altering this is the epitome of bad religion.
Thus I think heaven and hell has more to do with overcoming these self-destructive habits and that is why it is so important to understand that we cannot do this on our own without the help of God. I think the restoration of our relationship with God is not about overcoming some obstacle on the part of God but rather overcoming problems in us which can make a belief in God do more harm than good. After all, the only thing which can separate parent from child is when something makes the presence of the parent harmful to the child.
IOW what makes the Christian teaching sound so nonsensical to most people is from oversimplifications. But when you dig deeper can can find something of substance there after all. At least that is what I found. Because I can tell you one thing for sure… I accept nothing at face value.
Forgiveness doesn’t seem so tough to me – it is maintaining the anger and resentment which drains all our energy. And I think what people really want to see is full understanding of the suffering caused. They just hope that suffering on the part of the one who caused it will help them understand better. IOW what they want most is change on the part of the one doing evil that they will never do such a thing again – the ultimate triumph of good over evil.
When it comes to facing people who refuse or have no intention of changing, this renders mercy idiotic and forgiveness meaningless. That will not bring any victory of good over evil. And this is why the Bible does NOT push forgiveness as universal and unconditional. Over and over again there is also a message of judgement talking about separating the sheep from the goats. And I don’t think this any judgement of how bad people are. It is about those willing to change and those who will never change (lacking any desire to do so).
Romans 2:4 Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
But I don’t think as many imagine this means God made hell a torture chamber to punish people. Instead God’s approach is simply to give people up to the hell they have chosen. And thus hell is something we create for ourselves.
Romans 1:28 God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
But heaven or hell, the consequences of our actions cannot be escaped. The only question is whether we learn from them and do better or we let them grow until we are consumed.
Romans 2:6 For he will render to every man according to his works
3 Likes
I’m starting to think that the rewards/punishment theme in the Pentateuch is an accommodation made instead of trying to work with the idea of consequences. Back then the worldview was that everything that happened was due to some god or another, so everything was seen in terms of being on good terms with the gods and being rewarded or being on bad terms and reaping punishment.
1 Like
This line of interpretation has some merits but IMHO, it does not cover everything.
In the Hebrew Bible, there are repeatedly stories where the evil acts leads to such punishment by God that cannot be infered directly as the natural consequence of the evil. The consequences described can be drought or the invasion of cruel soldiers from a distant kingdom, and often happens after God sends messengers to warn that if you do not turn from your wicked ways, God will let this kind of punishment to come.
We could interpret such cases just as superstition - drought could be seen as a sign of an angry God even if it was just natural variability in the climate that fluctuated between arid and somewhat moistier conditions. However, that would lead to cutting much from the HB(/OT) just because what is told does not fit to our frame of interpretation.
Much of the reward/punishment theme could be counted as natural consequences of the acts but if we want to take the scriptures seriously, many cases needs to be counted as direct punishment allowed or ordered by God.
That leads to an even more interesting question: does God punish today as He did in the HB/OT?
Because of what Jesus did, we could assume that God shows more mercy and postpones the consequences of evil acts until some future time. On the other hand, God is the same in the HB/OT and NT.
My assumption is that widespread evil may lead to punishments by God even today. I do no count such cases just as punishment by an angry God, the punishments could be seen as a mixture of heavenly justice and a serious call to repent at the level of societies.
1 Like
I see Our Actions happen by Our Will or Fathers Guidance. I personally have experienced guidance indicating Me what to do.
When I was in the Navy, there was a Buffer Interface between my system computer and the Guided Missile Weapon Radar Computers. To Me Our Brain has a Buffer that Our Father can interface with US to give Guidance.
BTW I was given guidance one morning when I woke giving me the thought to Enlist in The Navy, and it was one of the best followings I’ve had. There are others. Multiple occurrences to Abraham.
I’m slowly understanding you think Praying is a learned action of copying from seeing other people, like Monkey see Monkey do. I still think it’s a willing ability that I can utilize whether even if the prayers have results or not.
Formalized prayer is probably learned, but I do think we humans psychologically (or whatever description you see fit) want to communicate with others and prayer would be a natural extension of that human tendency. If you believe God is as real as any person then it would make sense to want to communicate with God.
I don’t think it is possible to construct a logical proof of God, but in a more intuitive human subjective mode of thinking I would point to the commonality of religiosity across all human cultures as a stronger place to start. I’m not a believer, but the near ubiquity of religious belief of some kind across humanity does make me think religious belief speaks to a deeper truth about the human experience.
1 Like
I think that is basically the right idea but I believe it is even more fundamental. As human minds, language is the substance of our existence, and the human communication is our primary environment. So as a mind it is natural for us to relate to things that way. Of course that is not the whole story since we also have this biological component to our existence. There is some tension between these two aspects of our existence and the idea/experience of God is one of the ways in which we give our mind pre-eminence. Of course there are alternative ways to accomplish this and others do it differently.
Of course the religious will want to bring a third component into this, that of the spirit. And while I believe in that, I also feel forced to acknowledge its lack with regards to measurable knowledge. And so while belief and experiences with this is widespread, it is not universal and many have reason to doubt its existence outside the mind.
1 Like