Answered Prayer Seems Implausible
Our universe is vast and mysterious. There is so much we don’t understand about what it holds, where it all came from, when or where advanced powers might have arise, and how they might travel. So I cannot confidently rule out vast powers out there somewhere, maybe even powers that are aware of and not entirely indifferent to humans. In this sense I am an agnostic, not an atheist.
I can’t even exclude the possibility that some such powers hang around our planet, keeping their existence mostly hidden, but weakly influencing the human trajectory through minor interventions that may add up to big changes in the long run. That is, after all, my best guess of what UFOs as aliens would imply.
But the common hypothesis that some of these powers listen to unspoken thoughts in human heads, and then tend to on average favorably change the local world around those humans to “answer their prayers”, that hypothesis I find far harder to swallow.
This practice of answering prayer seems to require far more knowledge and efforts than would be required to more strongly direct the overall human trajectory, which they apparently choose not to do. So what gains could result from all this extra effort?
By assumption, these powers could favorably change the world around those who pray, but instead tend to choose not to do so in the absence of appropriately “sincere” prayers. This gives advantages to humans who are more popular, and also to those who are richer, as it seems quite possible to pay money to induce more sincere prayers.
The act of prayer may cut stress in those who pray, make them more willing to cooperate, and give them joys of submission. But such gains seem also available if such people would just put similar faith into their local human powers. Which most humans in fact did through most of the farming era.
Such vast powers themselves could in principle just enjoy the praise and submission of humans, but then why not make themselves clearly known and get far more praise and submission? And why care so much about the opinions of such small creatures?
Yes, if you try hard enough you can probably come up with some scenario in which it all makes sense. But you will have to make a great many a priori unlikely assumptions to make all that work. As a result, I assign a very low prior to such scenarios.
In contrast, the idea of great powers who answer prayer seems quite likely to arise via superstitious wishful thinking, even if no such great powers existed. This seems to me a far more likely origin of this practice. Especially in light of the fact that randomized trials find no gains for people unaware that they are being prayed for.
(Yes there’s a vast literature on this, little of which have I read.)
Given your articulation of answered prayer, this seems sound.
Just to point out for a general understanding though, not all conceptions of 'answered prayer' are humans crying out to venerate deities.
For example, one conception of prayer might be to align yourself with certain conceptions of goodness, work, order etc. In this sense, we observe 'sincere' prayers answered because the insincere ones by definition are not actually aligning an individuals actions with these structures.
Indeed, this is why you might observe certain individuals who pray to be preternaturally efficient, dedicated, joyful. It is because the act of prayer is tautologically aligned with being in such a mode. In the christian faith someone who achieves this is 'praying ceaselessly.'
This is more to do with the theology of a potential God in terms of 'necessary vs. contingent reality' as opposed to the potential deities of in-universe power.
To put it another way, I would posit you are engaging in a categorical error of ontology. If classical theism, which posits God as the ground of being itself rather than a powerful agent making choices is correct, then this line of argumentation simply doesn't land.
A few other considerations:
Not to flog a dead horse, but how are we supposed to infer what a transcendent intelligence would optimize for? This seems inefficient only really lands if you genuinely know the objective function.
If someone arrives at theism through other routes (cosmological arguments, fine-tuning, consciousness, etc.), the additional assumptions needed for prayer aren't costly. Why is this not really just restating "given naturalism, prayer seems unlikely?" Which is true but circular as a critique.
that meaning:
I find this true, but not interesting unfortunately. I hope it does not mislead others. Though it is a solid point to make against people practicing folk or a specific type of prayer.
It's interesting. You are IMHO the most original and perhaps deepest thinker alive, yet sometimes your cogitation produces something that has been obvious to many people since antiquity. This is one of those.