Does Praying Work?

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

I will count you as my amigo also.  And I do like your debating style, even if I don't always agree with you.  I am assuming you are talking about 'shoddy' research.  I didn't see that as something ancillary.  To me, the fact that you can find so many doctors from Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and the Mayo Clinic verifying that medical science can not explain the events in question, yet they did happen, and taking their time to provide the medical documentation, and risking their credibility to do it, is definitely a supporting piece of evidence.  Would you not agree?

I would certainly consider it a supporting piece of evidence - yet it is important to establish evidence of what we are talking about. Is it evidence that something happened that the medical science cannot explain at the moment? Certainly. Is it evidence that true "miracle", as in something that happens not as a consequence of the fundamental laws of the Universe (some of which we have yet to discover), bu a consequence of some extraneous influence, happened? I do not think so. As I mentioned before, when a doctor calls something a "miracle", they do not say it as a doctor, but as a bystander, just like me or you, for medical science does not feature the concept of a "miracle", and no medical credentials make one qualified to make this kind of statement.

just_sayin said:

I don't think that because I picked 2 papers written by the same 3 authors invalidates the content.  Does it sound rational to you to claim that if you come across 2 studies by researchers in that specific field that both studies must be invalid?  That's a weak argument.  

Claiming that because the 2 case studies come from Explore (Elsevier) therefore they are not respected, is somewhat dishonest in my opinion.  Remember these are case studies on miracles and prayer.  These are alternative medicine topics.  I wouldn't expect to see them in the New England Journal of Medicine.  Not because the information is not true, but because it is not replicable.  To me, the issue is do the case studies present the evidence in an accurate manner.  I believe they do.  

So don't believe the case studies make any assertions about the causal relation between prayer and the miracles?  Huh.  Let's look at one of them then.

Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer

Definitely not making any association in that title between a miracle and intercessory prayer at all (that's sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell).  

From the abstract:

She was diagnosed with macular degeneration (MD) and declared legally blind. In 1972, having been blind for over 12 years, the individual reportedly regained her vision instantaneously after receiving proximal-intercessory-prayer (PIP).

From the introduction:

This case report15 examines proximal intercessory prayer (PIP) associated with a remarkable recovery of vision in a JMD patient. 

From Therapeutic Focus and Assessment:

After completing a mobility training in May of 1972, the individual returned home and in August of 1972, one evening prior to going to bed, regained her vision instantaneously after receiving PIP from her husband. This experience occurred after approximately 13 years of blindness. The PIP was presented in a Christian tradition, extended to God as both asked for her eyesight to be restored that night.
When the couple went to bed later than normal (after midnight), her husband performed a hurried spiritual devotional practice (reading two Bible verses) and got on his knees to pray. She describes that they both began to cry as he began to pray, with a hand on her shoulder while she laid on the bed, and with great feeling and boldness he prayed: “Oh, God! You can restore […] eyesight tonight, Lord. I know You can do it! And I pray You will do it tonight.” At the close of the prayer, his wife opened her eyes and saw her husband kneeling in front of her, which was her first clear visual perception after almost 13 years of blindness.
The couple were not cessationists (i.e., believing that spiritual gifts such as glossolalia, healing, and prophecy are not for the present age), but they had never heard of anyone receiving a miraculous healing in the present day. The patient reported, “The only healings we knew about were in the Bible”.

Consistent with this hypothesis, studies of other in-person practices with curative intent such as Reiki have also suggested ANS stimulation effects,42., 43., 44. although we are not aware of other cases of blindness healing by CAM therapies other than PIP. In the current case, it appears as the tears were not the cause of healing, but rather they may have been a by-product of the ANS being stimulated through the PIP intervention.
In summary, the patient was blind for thirteen years because of a condition that appeared to be a severe form of Stargardt's disease. Following a PIP event, her vision was spontaneously restored and remains intact to date, 47 years later. 

It seems to me that you are in some ways attacking the case study because it is not a study of Proximity Intercessory Prayer rather than just a case study of what happened.  It seems like you want to argue 'yeah, well a miracle did happen.  But its not connected to prayer.'  But prayer happens immediately before the event and seems significant to the people who witnessed the event.  If I learned that a miracle happened right after prayer occurred, I am not sure I could make the leap of faith that you have and claim it is disconnected with that act.

I have not said that those studies are invalid - however, it certainly is a red flag when the same group of authors produces a number of papers in not-so-reputable journals, and the vast majority of other authors do not come to the same conclusions as they do. If the evidence was solid, then it would not be alternative medicine, but legitimate medicine. If there was a clear connection established between prayer and extremely fast recovery, then prayer would become a part of medicine and countless papers in reputable journals would be testifying to its effectiveness... That is demonstrably not the case, however.

To your second point, "correlation does not imply causation" (and in this case - "coincidence does not imply causation", which is a weaker claim) is a very important idea in epistemology. Do not confuse "there is no evidence of causal connection between prayer and recover" with "recovery is not connected to prayer": my argument is the former, not the latter. There have been countless cases where endless prayer did not lead to recovery, and countless cases where recovery happened without prayer being involved. The fact that the two sometimes come together does not at all support the hypothesis that a causal connection exists.
As an analogy, suppose my theory was this: "Drinking coffee cures cancer". I would point at many cases where people with cancer drank a lot of coffee, and later were cured, sometimes very rapidly. Would this reasoning be sound, in your view?

I want to once again emphasize the point: I am not saying that prayer does not cause rapid recovery, that rapid recovery is not a product of divine intervention, or that god does not exist. What I am saying is that the evidence presented does not warrant the conclusion that it does, that it is, or that it does. It is not a negation of the statement, but a negation of justification of the statement. It is not "Riemann hypothesis is incorrect", it is "Riemann hypothesis has not been proven to be correct". Whether it is correct or not is an open question.

just_sayin said:

I provided evidence from eyewitnesses. For instance in the case of Barbara Cummiskey, I have provided tv interviews with her, quotes from her doctors, cited quotes by her physicians in the Chicago Tribune, and a medical document with a signed note from her main doctor.  That doesn't seem to be a 'I met a guy who...' scenario.  

When you say that miracle would only suggest that our understanding of the universe is vastly incomplete, you are making a 'science of the gaps' argument.  If the situation was reversed and I made a God of the gaps kind of argument you would call me on it.  It is not reasonable to on the one hand say 'all knowing science explains what happened' and then when I ask 'well, what's the answer then?' and you have to respond 'there isn't any scientific or medical explanation for what happened yet.'  You are begging the question.  Science has claimed it can't explain what happened.  It does not logically follow that it will be able to do so in the future.  Your claim that it will, is a faith claim with no evidence in these specific cases to support that basis.  If you think I'm mistaken, I'll gladly quote Barbara Cummiskey's doctor's to you.  There is no ambiguity in their claims.  Remember they had sent her home to die.  

Depending on the exact claim you are making, it can be.

I do not think science can ever claim that it cannot explain what happened. Scientists can say that they do not have an explanation at the moment, but to say that there cannot possibly be a scientific explanation is something else entirely. I am not saying that science will explain it eventually; I am saying that there is no reason to assume that it will not.
Can you reverse it and make a similar argument in favor of god's existence? Something like, "I cannot yet prove that god exists, but I might be able to eventually?" Sure, and it is an absolutely sound argument. Yet, again, "God might be proven to exist eventually" and "God exists" are completely different statements, and the former does not at all imply the latter.

just_sayin said:

At some point we should really define what we mean by miracles.  I go with the original Hebrew and Koine Greek meanings of the word, also one of the definitions given by Webster - "an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs."  This definition does not claim that a miracle is physically or naturally impossible, only extraordinary and involves God's intervention.    Miracles by definition are 'extraordinary' events.  By definition, miracles are not consistent happenings that one can plan or program.  

There are other definitions used for miracles.  Catholics use a much stricter definition in their verification process.  There definition would exclude any natural explanation.  I'm happy to go into further if we venture into any Catholic confirmed miracles, like at Lourdes.  Hume essentially argued that miracles are logically impossible.  A miracle to him was a violation of natural law, and sense all things are observed in the natural universe, there can be no miracles.  By his very definition, he claimed there was no evidence of them.  That's a very deceptive tactic.  It makes its conclusion before investigation.  Is it possible for a being beyond space-time to operate within His creation and do something that is beyond natural explanation?  If you say no, without an investigation, you aren't really interested in an honest answer.

I am okay with this definition - however, it makes it very difficult, next to impossible, to justify calling anything a miracle. Even if a true miracle happened, what evidence can there possibly be that it was a result of divine intervention? The god would have to do something extraordinary for the evidence to appear.

If tomorrow suddenly all TVs, computer and phone screens blink and an image of golden glow appears, and a deep voice tells everyone, "Hello, I am god, and I exist. If you do not believe me, pick up your phone and press 117117117117, and I will talk to you personally and tell you things about you that no one aside from you can possibly know." - then yes, it will be hard to explain what happened without involving the idea of divine intervention. But someone's miraculous recovery after a prayer? Surely not. Just as me yelling, "God does not exist!", and winning a lottery a second later would not add a piece of evidence into the pile of evidence that god does not exist.

just_sayin said:

This is great.  The obvious question from me is since you have seen the evidence for Barbara Cummiskey's miracle where she had been unable to walk and blind, what's the medical explanation for what happened to her then?  Whose voice do you think she heard that happened to tell her to get up right at the moment her eyesight came back, her collapsed lung filled up, her atrophied legs started working, and her intestines started working again? This should be an interesting response.  Looking forward to hearing your explanation.

I do not know if she heard the voice for she is the only one who can possibly know whether she did. I do know that people hear voices sometimes when they have... mental issues. I also know that human body is largely unknown to us and that many recovery mechanisms exist that we have not properly studied. I know plenty of cases where atheists expected rapid recovery of this kind - how about Stephen Hawking who was told by his doctors that he only had 3 months left to live, and went on to live 50+ more years? Or Valentin Dikul who was nearly paralyzed one moment, and a couple of months later was lifting extremely heavy weights? I can even reference myself: my immune system is strong beyond the charts, I never get sick even if I run in icy rain in shorts only for 4 hours (done that; do not recommend) - there is no existing model of human anatomy that allows for it to be possible.

Yet again, the fact that we do not have a good explanation of these phenomena does not imply that the Christian explanation is somehow preferable to a gazillion of other potential explanations. Or the Muslim explanation. Or the Hinduist explanation. Or the Buddhist explanation. Or the Tolkienist explanation. Or the Star Wars explanation. "I do not know" means "I do not know", not "I now know that what I hope it is, it is".

just_sayin

@MayCaesar

I do not think so. As I mentioned before, when a doctor calls something a "miracle", they do not say it as a doctor, but as a bystander, just like me or you, for medical science does not feature the concept of a "miracle", and no medical credentials make one qualified to make this kind of statement.
...

I do not think science can ever claim that it cannot explain what happened. Scientists can say that they do not have an explanation at the moment, but to say that there cannot possibly be a scientific explanation is something else entirely. I am not saying that science will explain it eventually; I am saying that there is no reason to assume that it will not.

Yet again, the fact that we do not have a good explanation of these phenomena does not imply that the Christian explanation is somehow preferable to a gazillion of other potential explanations. Or the Muslim explanation. Or the Hinduist explanation. Or the Buddhist explanation. Or the Tolkienist explanation. Or the Star Wars explanation. "I do not know" means "I do not know", not "I now know that what I hope it is, it is".

I'm not so sure you really believe the last part above.  It seems like you are using a 'science of the gaps' argument.  It is almost a tautology 'even when science doesn't know it knows'.  That's essentially what you are arguing.  When a medical doctor who is familiar with the situation says something is a 'miracle'  they do so after eliminating all other options.  They make that determination based on all prior instances.  I don't see the fact they call it a 'miracle' as inappropriate, but being honest.  I think appealing to science as the all knowing all powerful answer is what is inappropriate and just a faith claim.  After all, it is based on all available science, that a miracle was considered the best possibility to start with because all other options had been discounted.  When science was asked 'what's the explanation?'  It answered 'there is none.'  It seems illogical to then say 'science doesn't know, but trust me, science knows'.  That's your argument in a nutshell.  It is the weak argument.  

I have not said that those studies are invalid - however, it certainly is a red flag when the same group of authors produces a number of papers in not-so-reputable journals, and the vast majority of other authors do not come to the same conclusions as they do. If the evidence was solid, then it would not be alternative medicine, but legitimate medicine. 

The reason that 2 of the studies have the same author is merely because I picked them.  They were the first I came across.  Prayer is is an appeal to a supernatural source, not a natural one.  So it isn't something you can program.  That's why it is classified as alternative medicine.  You seem to be under the wrong notion that it is not legitimate medicine.  Tell me, if there is nothing to it then, why do 75 to 90% of US medical schools incorporated spirituality and health into their curricula, and even having doctors pray with their patients (here, and here,)?  These classes are mandatory and part of the curriculum for doctors.  Why would alternative medicine practices be required to obtain a medical degree if it is just quackery?  Are you arguing that spiritual discussions about spiritual practices like prayer are being mandated but aren't considered 'legitimate' medicine?  it seems 90 percent of medical schools see value in it.  just sayin

As an analogy, suppose my theory was this: "Drinking coffee cures cancer". I would point at many cases where people with cancer drank a lot of coffee, and later were cured, sometimes very rapidly. Would this reasoning be sound, in your view?

If drinking coffee showed you were more likely to be cured of cancer than not drinking coffee, and did so by a statistically significant difference, then your reasoning would indeed be sound.  You omitted a control group in your analogy.  Why was that?  When looking at prayer studies, they have generally have control groups.  Some are double blind, and some are triple blind, where even the researchers don't know who is in which group until the end.  If you have evidence that drinking coffee is more likely to cure cancer, then definitely drink some coffee, mi amigo.  (If you drink Cuban coffee, know it is very strong and you should only drink a shot size cup of it to start with).

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

I'm not so sure you really believe the last part above.  It seems like you are using a 'science of the gaps' argument.  It is almost a tautology 'even when science doesn't know it knows'.  That's essentially what you are arguing.  When a medical doctor who is familiar with the situation says something is a 'miracle'  they do so after eliminating all other options.  They make that determination based on all prior instances.  I don't see the fact they call it a 'miracle' as inappropriate, but being honest.  I think appealing to science as the all knowing all powerful answer is what is inappropriate and just a faith claim.  After all, it is based on all available science, that a miracle was considered the best possibility to start with because all other options had been discounted.  When science was asked 'what's the explanation?'  It answered 'there is none.'  It seems illogical to then say 'science doesn't know, but trust me, science knows'.  That's your argument in a nutshell.  It is the weak argument.  

I am not sure we will get far here if you keep seeing in my arguments what is not there. My arguments are crystal clear: I do not leave anything behind the lines and put it all out there. What is there is there, and what is not is not. If you disagree with this premise, then this conversation is going to be fairly unproductive.

I specifically said: "I am not saying that science will explain it eventually; I am saying that there is no reason to assume that it will not." Why are you attributing the opposite view to me?

just_sayin said:

The reason that 2 of the studies have the same author is merely because I picked them.  They were the first I came across.  Prayer is is an appeal to a supernatural source, not a natural one.  So it isn't something you can program.  That's why it is classified as alternative medicine.  You seem to be under the wrong notion that it is not legitimate medicine.  Tell me, if there is nothing to it then, why do 75 to 90% of US medical schools incorporated spirituality and health into their curricula, and even having doctors pray with their patients (here, and here,)?  These classes are mandatory and part of the curriculum for doctors.  Why would alternative medicine practices be required to obtain a medical degree if it is just quackery?  Are you arguing that spiritual discussions about spiritual practices like prayer are being mandated but aren't considered 'legitimate' medicine?  it seems 90 percent of medical schools see value in it.  just sayin

Medicine is medicine, I am not sure how it can be or not be legitimate. It can be effective or not effective though, and the fact that million Christians with cancer pray themselves and have their countless family members and friends pray for their recovery daily and still end up dying - says something about effectiveness of this type of medical intervention.

My understanding is that things like praying with your patients are intended to give emotional support for the patients. I have never heard of a medical school teaching doctors to pray with their patients in order to bestow the deity's blessing on them; if there are schools that indeed do this, then I hope that they are called out on it and people serious about studying and practicing serious medicine avoid them like a plague.

just_sayin said:

If drinking coffee showed you were more likely to be cured of cancer than not drinking coffee, and did so by a statistically significant difference, then your reasoning would indeed be sound.  You omitted a control group in your analogy.  Why was that?  When looking at prayer studies, they have generally have control groups.  Some are double blind, and some are triple blind, where even the researchers don't know who is in which group until the end.  If you have evidence that drinking coffee is more likely to cure cancer, then definitely drink some coffee, mi amigo.  (If you drink Cuban coffee, know it is very strong and you should only drink a shot size cup of it to start with).

Eh, this is not how these things work. There can be multiple reasons for a positive correlation between two variables without any causal link between them. But my point was not even that; my point was that the fact that some action preceded some event does not imply that that action caused that event, no matter how many times it has happened. 

I drink coffee almost every morning. I am also very productive in the morning. Yet when I do not drink coffee, I am still very productive. If I wanted to make an argument that coffee makes me productive, then I could point out how often I was productive after drinking coffee - but you realize that presence of days on which I do not drink coffee and am still productive invalidates my argument.
Why does then not existence of cases where prayer did not result in a miraculous recovery invalidate the theory that prayer causes miraculous recoveries?

Barnardot

@MayCaesar @just_sayin @Dee
Wow this is so grate. Were got the 3 non debaters on this site Lier Boy Angry Boy and I gnorant Boy all on the same no brainer topic going a round in circles the hole time. And just as well it’s a no brainer to because there all in the same level about the same thing. What a releaf for the rest of the site. And every now and then any one can just have a look at this topic to find out the latest dirty tricks that non debaters use just for laughs and watch them shoot each other in the feet. Oh wow and yippee do.

Dee

@Barnardot

Seems like anyone that put you in your place you get annoyed at , maybe that's some you can work on.

Either way you're a  tax cheat who openly bragged about how you're playing the system , you actually work for a man who exploits and uses illegal immigrants and you brag about it ,WOW,  .......tells us all we need to know .

JoeKerr

Argument Topic: UNANSWERED PRAYERS

John 14:13-14King James Version

13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14 If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it

If that's the case, how come the majority of people suffering from terminal cancer and have people praying

for them 24/7, end up dead? 

John_C_87

Argument Topic: The unknow reply

JoeKerr said:

John 14:13-14

King James Version13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.14 If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do itIf that's the case, how come the majority of people suffering from terminal cancer and have people prayingfor them 24/7, end up dead? 

And whatsoever ye ask in the self-evident truth, that will I do, that the Father may be gloried in the Son and the Mother may be gloried in the daughter.

If ye shall ask anything in the self-evident truth, I will do it.

If that's the case, how come the majority of people suffering from terminal cancer and have people praying for them 24/7, end up dead? The self-evident truth is we all dying until are death it is the prayer that lets us know we do not face all truth alone on that journey regardless of the speed at which we travel to the end..

just_sayin

JoeKerr said:

John 14:13-14

King James Version13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.14 If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do itIf that's the case, how come the majority of people suffering from terminal cancer and have people prayingfor them 24/7, end up dead? 

What does the Bible say about why some prayers are not answered in the way we want?

1)  Someone embracing a sinful life will hinder their prayers

“If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened” (Ps. 66:18)
'If anyone turns a deaf ear to my instruction, even their prayers are detestable. (Proverbs 28:9)
“Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isaiah 59:1-2)

2) Mistreating others, and holding grudges will hinder your prayers

“Husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”  (1 Peter 3:7)
"And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” (Mark 11:25)

3) Pride hinders prayers

"To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’  “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14)

4) Lack of faith will hinder prayers

 “But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does” (James 1:6-8) 

5) Asking with wrong motives

“When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures” (James 4:3)

6) Its not God's will

 “And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.”  - 1 John 5:14-15

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. (Matthew 6:33)

You omitted a key part of the passage:  If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. (John 15:7)

Prayer is about a relationship with God, not about getting everything you want.  If something is outside of God's will He won't give it to you.  Prayer is not candy machine where if you put in so much you will get out what you want.  Prayer is a conversation with a supernatural being.  In the same way a parent will not give their child everything they ask, God will not give us everything we ask for.  That doesn't mean, he doesn't prayer.  His answer may be 'no'.  If we ask with the wrong motives, His answer may be 'Grow'.  If we we ask at the wrong time, God may say 'slow'.  But that doesn't mean that if the timing is right, the motive and God's will agree, and that God won't answer prayer.  God answers a lot of prayers just the way we want.  I've shared numerous links where people attest to answered prayer.  

87% of Americans who pray say their prayers were answered in the last year: study

Hope that answers your question.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;2) Mistreating others, and holding grudges will hinder your prayers

Would you say then that that includes say some one who holds a grudge against people chopping off kids heads and mis treating others like falsely accusing them of being say illegal immigrants and ex prisoner when there not. And say if some one doesn't apologise like they say they will is that holding a grudge. And will God listen to those who constantly lier and offend descent people?

JoeKerr

Argument Topic: UNANSWERED PRAYERS

@just_sayin
No, it doesn't answer my question.
If someone recovers from an illness they weren't expected to survive, then those praying for that person claim 
that their prayers have been answered.
If the person dies, then those praying say it was not in god's plan.
Ephesians 1 states that all things are done according to god's plan and decision.
Proverbs 16 states that god has made everything for its purpose, including the wicked.
It would appear that god has everything set up to happen.
The bible states that god is immutable, therefore everything that happens is part of his plan.
Why do you think that praying will alter that plan?

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

It sounds like an unfalsifiable theory. No one is perfect, no one never mistreats others, never holds even the smallest grudge, no one has absolute indomitable faith... So every time someone prays and their prayer has not been heard, you can say, "Oh, this guy mistreated his coworker 15 years ago... No wonder." On the other hand, every time someone prays and what they pray for happen, suddenly it is, "God willed it".

It is like people in extremely abusive relationships who make excuses for why their partner was justified to do what they did. "She attacked me with a knife yesterday... But it was called for: I did not wash dishes on time". And then, "Today she gave me a kiss for the first time in 2 years. She is so sweet!"

I am not sure what the point of all these justifications is. Might as well just say, "I believe that prayer works and no further justification is needed" - at least that would be an honest position.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

It sounds like an unfalsifiable theory. No one is perfect, no one never mistreats others, never holds even the smallest grudge, no one has absolute indomitable faith... So every time someone prays and their prayer has not been heard, you can say, "Oh, this guy mistreated his coworker 15 years ago... No wonder." On the other hand, every time someone prays and what they pray for happen, suddenly it is, "God willed it".

It is like people in extremely abusive relationships who make excuses for why their partner was justified to do what they did. "She attacked me with a knife yesterday... But it was called for: I did not wash dishes on time". And then, "Today she gave me a kiss for the first time in 2 years. She is so sweet!"

I am not sure what the point of all these justifications is. Might as well just say, "I believe that prayer works and no further justification is needed" - at least that would be an honest position.

Oh now, its not as unfalsifiable as claiming 'even when science doesn't know the answer, trust me, it knows the answer'.  That to me is an unfalsifiable story.  A miracle happens and science says there is no scientific explanation for it and then somebody says, we'll its not a miracle, science just hasn't disproven it yet.  Ignore that science failed to disprove it in the first place."  That's an unfalsifiable story.

Prayer is not about manipulating nature, but prayer is communicating with a supernatural being with His own will.   I get that it appears to be unfalsifiable.  And no doubt someone could claim that some hidden sin was keeping the prayer from being answered.  I would point out to you though that there is an abundance of evidence that God has answered prayers from the very people who prayed themselves.  This differs from your unfalsifiable claim that 'even when science can't explain a miracle, science can explain a miracle'

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I agree. I am not sure what relevance it has to my argument though, for I have never said or implied that "even when science doesn't know the answer, trust me, it knows the answer", or "even when science can't explain a miracle, science can explain a miracle". I increasingly see your position as being based on a set of logical fallacies, and when challenging arguments are thrown your way, your only resort is to respond to their altered, indefensible version.
It is pretty disgusting, honestly. I am okay with you attacking bad arguments against your position, but falsely attributing them to me or your other opponents is disgraceful. As is ignoring the actual arguments.

In order to claim that one knows something about god's reasoning and his affinity to answering prayers, there have to be some patterns that are directly observable - and that are falsifiable. The claim that not being perfectly faithful impairs one's ability to communicate with god, for instance, is unfalsifiable, for no one is perfectly faithful, therefore there is no data that is possible to obtain to confirm or disconfirm the statement. The hallmark of understanding is the ability to give predictions, such as "If I do X, then Y will happen". And it does not matter if we are talking about some raw physical phenomenon, or an act of communication with someone. I know that if I ask my good friend to help me move, he will if he is not terribly busy - and if he is busy, he will explain why he cannot help me and apologize. He will not just ignore my request, or say "No" and walk away with no explanation: that is not how a healthy relationship between people works. With god, it sounds like you throw something at a very capricious being that could not care less about you and does whatever it pleases, hoping to get lucky - which is pretty pathetic, and, again, unpredictable.

Dee

@MayCaesar

 increasingly see your position as being based on a set of logical fallacies, and when challenging arguments are thrown your way, your only resort is to respond to their altered, indefensible version.
It is pretty disgusting, honestly. I am okay with you attacking bad arguments against your position, but falsely attributing them to me or your other opponents is disgraceful. As is ignoring the actual arguments.


You're correct , I agree with every word you say on this person and it is disgusting. When I made about a comment about a  super wealthy  black bishop and how it appeared he was milking the flock he disgracefully said I disliked him because he was black. He does it everytime re- phrases all arguments into one's his opponents are not making.

just_sayin

Dee said:

@MayCaesar

 increasingly see your position as being based on a set of logical fallacies, and when challenging arguments are thrown your way, your only resort is to respond to their altered, indefensible version.
It is pretty disgusting, honestly. I am okay with you attacking bad arguments against your position, but falsely attributing them to me or your other opponents is disgraceful. As is ignoring the actual arguments.


You're correct , I agree with every word you say on this person and it is disgusting. When I made about a comment about a  super wealthy  black bishop and how it appeared he was milking the flock he disgracefully said I disliked him because he was black. He does it everytime re- phrases all arguments into one's his opponents are not making.

@Dee, I don't think you are a racist.  I think you are quick to falsely accuse and demonize people you know nothing about.  I think you put forth many baseless arguments without any evidence.  You might have bad eyesight also, now that I think about it.  Confusing a old overweight white guy with gray hair for a slim nearly bald Black bishop, who doesn't even live in the same state, leads me to think so.  Anyway, I don't think you would make a good eye witness, if you are ever called on to identify someone in a police lineup.  

I don't think you are a racist.  I think you hate everybody equally.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar

It is pretty disgusting, honestly. I am okay with you attacking bad arguments against your position, but falsely attributing them to me or your other opponents is disgraceful. As is ignoring the actual arguments.

You seemed offended when Barbara Commiskey's doctor's declared her recovery a 'miracle'.  You claimed that such a conclusion  was inappropriate, and wasn't 'scientific', and that science may find an answer for it.  But, they reached that conclusion because there was no medical explanation for it.  If there is no scientific explanation possible, it doesn't seem illogical to conclude it was a miracle.  Your response was you said there was no reason to think that science would not explain it.  That is indeed a 'science of the gaps' argument.  Science was consulted and failed to answer it already.

Under your view point, how would anyone prove that a miracle had occurred?  

Dee

@just_sayin

I don't think you are a racist. I think you are quick to falsely accuse and demonize people you know nothing about.

Because I call your assorted line up of preachers charlatans you get upset , regards knowing nothing about them I've read enough on each to know considerably more than you. You believe every word these charlatans utter because of extreme gullibility and ignorance.

 I think you put forth many baseless arguments without any evidence.

You mean like not accepting the claims made by your ridiculous sources , you think evidence mean anything that's posted in The Christian Post.

 You might have bad eyesight also, now that I think about it. Confusing a old overweight white guy with gray hair for a slim nearly bald Black bishop, who doesn't even live in the same state, leads me to think so.

You mean the Doctor you said didn't exist....sure buddy.


 Anyway, I don't think you would make a good eye witness, if you are ever called on to identify someone in a police lineup.  

LOL but your idea of a good witness is someone like you who believes in talking snakes, Noahs Ark ,  virgin births and Zombies.

I don't think you are a racist. I think you hate everybody equally.

I never hated anyone it's pointless to do so , I leave the hate to you and your middle class " christian" bible thumpers who hate anyone who isn't a  white , Republican,  gun toting , misogynistic, bigot and racist .

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

You seemed offended when Barbara Commiskey's doctor's declared her recovery a 'miracle'.  You claimed that such a conclusion  was inappropriate, and wasn't 'scientific', and that science may find an answer for it.  But, they reached that conclusion because there was no medical explanation for it.  If there is no scientific explanation possible, it doesn't seem illogical to conclude it was a miracle.  Your response was you said there was no reason to think that science would not explain it.  That is indeed a 'science of the gaps' argument.  Science was consulted and failed to answer it already.

Under your view point, how would anyone prove that a miracle had occurred?  

How can I be offended by a fact? I very calmly explained that when the doctor declares something a "miracle", he speaks not as a doctor, but as a commoner, for in medical sciences term "miracle" does not exist. The doctor claimed that medical science cannot at present explain the recovery - however, the claim does not imply the stronger claim that medical science is principally incapable of explaining it. To prove that something cannot in principle be explained scientifically, an entirely different level of argumentation is needed; in fact, I suspect that it might be impossible to prove such a claim, making it a-priori invalid.
You keep calling this argument a "science of the gaps" argument, but you never explain in what way exactly it is wrong. Okay, let us call it a "science of the gaps" argument. Calling it that is not a criticism. Do you have a criticism? If so, I would love to hear it.

As to your question, I do not think such a proof is possible. "Miracle" seems to be a bit of a self-contradictory term, for if something has been proven to be a miracle, then it has been proven to be a fact of reality, caused by laws of reality, therefore not being a miracle. More precisely, perhaps, you should ask, "How would anyone prove that an event was caused by divine intervention?" That is a better question, and I have already proposed one scenario in which it would be difficult to find any explanation other than that - which, for all practical purposes, might be considered a proof.
Notice that there are different claims that you are lumping together, yet that I tackle separately:
1. Person X experienced a rapid recovery that cannot be at present explained by science.
2. Person X's rapid recovery was a miracle.
3. Person X's rapid recovery was a product of prayer.
4. Said prayer was an act of communication with god, who bestowed his grace on the person and that caused rapid recovery.
These claims would warrant very different pieces of evidence in their support, and these claims do not imply each other. If, say, you were to prove that claims 1 and 2 are correct, claims 3 and 4 would still remain unproven.

At best, the evidence you have cited so far could prove that prayer is positively correlated with rate of rapid recovery and, in fact, may be one of the contributing factors to it. This very well might be true, and I have proposed a couple of hypotheses in the past on why this could be the case. This does not support any of the 4 claims I listed, however.

GiantMan

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

You seemed offended when Barbara Commiskey's doctor's declared her recovery a 'miracle'.  You claimed that such a conclusion  was inappropriate, and wasn't 'scientific', and that science may find an answer for it.  But, they reached that conclusion because there was no medical explanation for it.  If there is no scientific explanation possible, it doesn't seem illogical to conclude it was a miracle.  Your response was you said there was no reason to think that science would not explain it.  That is indeed a 'science of the gaps' argument.  Science was consulted and failed to answer it already.

Under your view point, how would anyone prove that a miracle had occurred?  

How can I be offended by a fact? I very calmly explained that when the doctor declares something a "miracle", he speaks not as a doctor, but as a commoner, for in medical sciences term "miracle" does not exist. The doctor claimed that medical science cannot at present explain the recovery - however, the claim does not imply the stronger claim that medical science is principally incapable of explaining it. To prove that something cannot in principle be explained scientifically, an entirely different level of argumentation is needed; in fact, I suspect that it might be impossible to prove such a claim, making it a-priori invalid.
You keep calling this argument a "science of the gaps" argument, but you never explain in what way exactly it is wrong. Okay, let us call it a "science of the gaps" argument. Calling it that is not a criticism. Do you have a criticism? If so, I would love to hear it.

As to your question, I do not think such a proof is possible. "Miracle" seems to be a bit of a self-contradictory term, for if something has been proven to be a miracle, then it has been proven to be a fact of reality, caused by laws of reality, therefore not being a miracle. More precisely, perhaps, you should ask, "How would anyone prove that an event was caused by divine intervention?" That is a better question, and I have already proposed one scenario in which it would be difficult to find any explanation other than that - which, for all practical purposes, might be considered a proof.
Notice that there are different claims that you are lumping together, yet that I tackle separately:
1. Person X experienced a rapid recovery that cannot be at present explained by science.
2. Person X's rapid recovery was a miracle.
3. Person X's rapid recovery was a product of prayer.
4. Said prayer was an act of communication with god, who bestowed his grace on the person and that caused rapid recovery.
These claims would warrant very different pieces of evidence in their support, and these claims do not imply each other. If, say, you were to prove that claims 1 and 2 are correct, claims 3 and 4 would still remain unproven.

At best, the evidence you have cited so far could prove that prayer is positively correlated with rate of rapid recovery and, in fact, may be one of the contributing factors to it. This very well might be true, and I have proposed a couple of hypotheses in the past on why this could be the case. This does not support any of the 4 claims I listed, however.

You just proved just saying's point for him.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;How can I be offended by a fact?

Well thats what every one is asking and your the only one who can answer that . 

Of course I might be guilty of being presumpsious but it seems that any facts placed before you you go all quiet and pretend it never happened.

just_sayin

GiantMan said:

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

You seemed offended when Barbara Commiskey's doctor's declared her recovery a 'miracle'.  You claimed that such a conclusion  was inappropriate, and wasn't 'scientific', and that science may find an answer for it.  But, they reached that conclusion because there was no medical explanation for it.  If there is no scientific explanation possible, it doesn't seem illogical to conclude it was a miracle.  Your response was you said there was no reason to think that science would not explain it.  That is indeed a 'science of the gaps' argument.  Science was consulted and failed to answer it already.

Under your view point, how would anyone prove that a miracle had occurred?  

How can I be offended by a fact? I very calmly explained that when the doctor declares something a "miracle", he speaks not as a doctor, but as a commoner, for in medical sciences term "miracle" does not exist. The doctor claimed that medical science cannot at present explain the recovery - however, the claim does not imply the stronger claim that medical science is principally incapable of explaining it. To prove that something cannot in principle be explained scientifically, an entirely different level of argumentation is needed; in fact, I suspect that it might be impossible to prove such a claim, making it a-priori invalid.
You keep calling this argument a "science of the gaps" argument, but you never explain in what way exactly it is wrong. Okay, let us call it a "science of the gaps" argument. Calling it that is not a criticism. Do you have a criticism? If so, I would love to hear it.

As to your question, I do not think such a proof is possible. "Miracle" seems to be a bit of a self-contradictory term, for if something has been proven to be a miracle, then it has been proven to be a fact of reality, caused by laws of reality, therefore not being a miracle. More precisely, perhaps, you should ask, "How would anyone prove that an event was caused by divine intervention?" That is a better question, and I have already proposed one scenario in which it would be difficult to find any explanation other than that - which, for all practical purposes, might be considered a proof.
Notice that there are different claims that you are lumping together, yet that I tackle separately:
1. Person X experienced a rapid recovery that cannot be at present explained by science.
2. Person X's rapid recovery was a miracle.
3. Person X's rapid recovery was a product of prayer.
4. Said prayer was an act of communication with god, who bestowed his grace on the person and that caused rapid recovery.
These claims would warrant very different pieces of evidence in their support, and these claims do not imply each other. If, say, you were to prove that claims 1 and 2 are correct, claims 3 and 4 would still remain unproven.

At best, the evidence you have cited so far could prove that prayer is positively correlated with rate of rapid recovery and, in fact, may be one of the contributing factors to it. This very well might be true, and I have proposed a couple of hypotheses in the past on why this could be the case. This does not support any of the 4 claims I listed, however.

You just proved just saying's point for him.

Yep.  Exactly.  He should have just been honest and said he didn't believe there are miracles and that he is closed minded to accept any evidence no matter how overwhelming, documented, and verified.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin @GiantMan ;Yep.  Exactly.  He should have just been honest

Thats a bit rich coming from some one who has actually been proved time and time again by every one on this site to be a compulsive pathological lier and posts scam evidence from scam webites. By the way @GiantMan just do not open the links that Lier Boy posts because there full of phishing. Because next thing you know theres nothing left in your bank for some odd reason and every one knows where you live for some odd reason. Just as well most of those scam bogus sites he posts disappear to another address after a while because they keep getting closed down.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin @GiantMan ;Yep.  Exactly.  He should have just been honest

Thats a bit rich coming from some one who has actually been proved time and time again by every one on this site to be a compulsive pathological lier and posts scam evidence from scam webites. By the way @GiantMan just do not open the links that Lier Boy posts because there full of phishing. Because next thing you know theres nothing left in your bank for some odd reason and every one knows where you live for some odd reason. Just as well most of those scam bogus sites he posts disappear to another address after a while because they keep getting closed down.

Why do you feel the need to make things up?  I've been more than happy to provide links for the points I make.  I've provided dozens and dozens of links just on the efficacy of prayer issue alone.  I've provided links that show:
a) Most people who pray have had a prayer answered in the past year (87 percent)
b) Most medical programs have incorporated spiritual formation and prayer into their instructional programs
c) Provided numerous links to studies that show that prayer has health benefits for the ones prayed for (in fact of the 1200 plus prayer studies, the vast majority show benefits to praying)
d) video evidence of miracles such as a paralyzed woman walk after being prayed for
e) medically documented evidence of miracles
f) News reports of miracles
g) Pew research polls on people claiming they have seen a miracle or healing

In contrast, you provided Dee-dly squat to support your claim.  You don't have any evidence, and you don't have a prayer of winning this debate.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Yep.  Exactly.  He should have just been honest and said he didn't believe there are miracles and that he is closed minded to accept any evidence no matter how overwhelming, documented, and verified.  

I am standing right here, my friend. Will you choose to wrestle with tough arguments, or respond to one-liners by yes-men?

Also, please refrain from mind-reading. I have explained my position in detail, I hope. To ignore all this and once again say that I am "closed minded"... That is pretty unfair.

Dee

@just_sayinIn ;

In contrast, you provided Dee-dly squat to support your claim. You don't have any evidence, and you don't have a prayer of winning this debate.

LOL hilarious lunacy from just preaching who believes in virgin births , demons , angels , talking snakes/ donkeys, virgin births, Noahs Ark,  resurrected Zombies etc , etc and just preaching believes this because an assortment of talking donkeys reading  from a pulpit  a book of contradictory nonsense told hm so ....

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

Yep.  Exactly.  He should have just been honest and said he didn't believe there are miracles and that he is closed minded to accept any evidence no matter how overwhelming, documented, and verified.  

I am standing right here, my friend. Will you choose to wrestle with tough arguments, or respond to one-liners by yes-men?

Also, please refrain from mind-reading. I have explained my position in detail, I hope. To ignore all this and once again say that I am "closed minded"... That is pretty unfair.

What conditions must be met for you to openly say that a miracle has occurred?  

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

What conditions must be met for you to openly say that a miracle has occurred?  

That is like asking, "What properties must a woman possess for you to ask for her hand?" You very rarely know what observations exactly will lead you to a particular conclusion. A judge does not know at the beginning of the trial what exact pieces of evidence will decide the case; if he did, there would be no point in the trial.

Furthermore, as I explained above, the way "miracle" is defined seems to make its occurrence metaphysically impossible. If "miracle" means an event that defies science, then, given what science is, "miracles" seem impossible in this reality.

However, I also suggested an improved definition of a "miracle" that would be metaphysically possible: it would invalidate some of your arguments (such as that miracles defy medical science), but it would make it possible to demonstrate that something is a miracle were it to occur. Specifically, you can define a "miracle" as something that does not follow any detectable pattern, that occurs out of nowhere and seems to contradict everything that we have observed so far. This, again, makes the "medical miracles" you mentioned not fall under this definition, as they - should they actually have occurred - do present a certain pattern. But a true miracle would be something very random and unexpected, something like gravity in your room suddenly reversing itself for a few seconds and then coming back, and no other observations of this phenomenon having been ever documented by anyone. That would be odd enough for me to call it a miracle.

I have never observed anything of this kind and never heard any documented cases of events of this kind, but I absolutely keep an open mind for them. And as I said a few times before, if the "god" truly existed and wanted to prove to me his existence, he could do it in a flash. A radiant being could magically appear in my room, say, "Hey, I'm god. Let's talk", answer quickly and correctly a few of my questions that no regular being could possibly answer instantly ("What is 2348978923478932 times 4328947873279243?") - and I would be convinced. Not that hard for an omnipotent being, is it? Yet there is silence... it is quite telling.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

What conditions must be met for you to openly say that a miracle has occurred?  

That is like asking, "What properties must a woman possess for you to ask for her hand?" You very rarely know what observations exactly will lead you to a particular conclusion. A judge does not know at the beginning of the trial what exact pieces of evidence will decide the case; if he did, there would be no point in the trial.

Furthermore, as I explained above, the way "miracle" is defined seems to make its occurrence metaphysically impossible. If "miracle" means an event that defies science, then, given what science is, "miracles" seem impossible in this reality.

However, I also suggested an improved definition of a "miracle" that would be metaphysically possible: it would invalidate some of your arguments (such as that miracles defy medical science), but it would make it possible to demonstrate that something is a miracle were it to occur. Specifically, you can define a "miracle" as something that does not follow any detectable pattern, that occurs out of nowhere and seems to contradict everything that we have observed so far. This, again, makes the "medical miracles" you mentioned not fall under this definition, as they - should they actually have occurred - do present a certain pattern. But a true miracle would be something very random and unexpected, something like gravity in your room suddenly reversing itself for a few seconds and then coming back, and no other observations of this phenomenon having been ever documented by anyone. That would be odd enough for me to call it a miracle.

I have never observed anything of this kind and never heard any documented cases of events of this kind, but I absolutely keep an open mind for them. And as I said a few times before, if the "god" truly existed and wanted to prove to me his existence, he could do it in a flash. A radiant being could magically appear in my room, say, "Hey, I'm god. Let's talk", answer quickly and correctly a few of my questions that no regular being could possibly answer instantly ("What is 2348978923478932 times 4328947873279243?") - and I would be convinced. Not that hard for an omnipotent being, is it? Yet there is silence... it is quite telling.

Wow, I just don't have as much faith as you.  if someone is told they will be dead within a few days, and then after being prayed for, they jump out of bed - which they hadn't been able to walk or stand for many years, and then notice that they can see, which they hadn't been able to do for many years, and their lung had miraculously inflated after not functioning for several years, and her intestines started working, and several of her doctors went on record saying there was no medical explanation, I don't think I could put my faith in science and claim 'even when science says it doesn't know, trust me, it has the answer'.  You have far more faith in science than I can muster.  

So an instantaneous incident of someone being healed of blindness, being lame, etc. doesn't count as a miracle?   i doubt your faith in science will allow you to admit anything is a miracle.  At least Barnadot is honest about his closed mindedness, well sorta.  When Barnadot said that he would believe in miracles unless there was a evidence of someone's limb growing back after it was cut off, he'd believe in miracles.  I pointed him to the miracle of Calanda.  There a guy's leg was amputated and then his leg 'showed up' one night again.  The tale is well documented.  Rather than admit there was a miracle, Barnadot claimed the man, his family, the judge, the king, the priests, and the 24 documented witnesses who testified that the leg was amputated and then later 'returned' must have lied.  I'm surprised he didn't ask for videotape of the 1641 miracle. 

In your last paragraph you essentially ask why God doesn't make Himself more obvious if He exists.  This is the question of God's hiddenness as theologians have spoken on.  Plato even claimed that the order of the heavens was clear evidence of God's existence.  The first guy to go into space, a Russian cosmonaut, famously said that he had been to space and had not seen God, therefore God must not exist.  C.S. Lewis famously responded to him and told him that God was not like someone living on a second floor apartment that all you had to do was get up higher to see.  He said that a better analogy was it was more like Hamlet looking for Shakespeare.  Shakespeare created the character of Hamlet.  One would not expect Hamlet to find Shakespeare on his own unless his creator wrote the story that way.  

Just because Taylor Swift hasn't shown up at your doorstep doesn't mean she doesn't exist.  There is plenty of evidence for her existence.  I would argue, like Plato, that God has not left Himself without any evidence or witnesses of His conduct.  The example of the miracle we have been talking about come to mind.  Now, it may not be as obvious as you want.  That is true.  But I personally, believe that if God did appear to you as obviously as you wish, it would overwhelm you.  Fear would overtake you.  Knowing that someone so powerful and just sees your every action and has the power and right to punish you for your conduct.  I think that would lead not to your responding in love to God's direct presence, but it would lead to more of a fearful relationship.   But that is just my own personal belief.  

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Wow, I just don't have as much faith as you.  if someone is told they will be dead within a few days, and then after being prayed for, they jump out of bed - which they hadn't been able to walk or stand for many years, and then notice that they can see, which they hadn't been able to do for many years, and their lung had miraculously inflated after not functioning for several years, and her intestines started working, and several of her doctors went on record saying there was no medical explanation, I don't think I could put my faith in science and claim 'even when science says it doesn't know, trust me, it has the answer'.  You have far more faith in science than I can muster.  

So an instantaneous incident of someone being healed of blindness, being lame, etc. doesn't count as a miracle?   i doubt your faith in science will allow you to admit anything is a miracle.  At least Barnadot is honest about his closed mindedness, well sorta.  When Barnadot said that he would believe in miracles unless there was a evidence of someone's limb growing back after it was cut off, he'd believe in miracles.  I pointed him to the miracle of Calanda.  There a guy's leg was amputated and then his leg 'showed up' one night again.  The tale is well documented.  Rather than admit there was a miracle, Barnadot claimed the man, his family, the judge, the king, the priests, and the 24 documented witnesses who testified that the leg was amputated and then later 'returned' must have lied.  I'm surprised he didn't ask for videotape of the 1641 miracle. 

In your last paragraph you essentially ask why God doesn't make Himself more obvious if He exists.  This is the question of God's hiddenness as theologians have spoken on.  Plato even claimed that the order of the heavens was clear evidence of God's existence.  The first guy to go into space, a Russian cosmonaut, famously said that he had been to space and had not seen God, therefore God must not exist.  C.S. Lewis famously responded to him and told him that God was not like someone living on a second floor apartment that all you had to do was get up higher to see.  He said that a better analogy was it was more like Hamlet looking for Shakespeare.  Shakespeare created the character of Hamlet.  One would not expect Hamlet to find Shakespeare on his own unless his creator wrote the story that way.  

Just because Taylor Swift hasn't shown up at your doorstep doesn't mean she doesn't exist.  There is plenty of evidence for her existence.  I would argue, like Plato, that God has not left Himself without any evidence or witnesses of His conduct.  The example of the miracle we have been talking about come to mind.  Now, it may not be as obvious as you want.  That is true.  But I personally, believe that if God did appear to you as obviously as you wish, it would overwhelm you.  Fear would overtake you.  Knowing that someone so powerful and just sees your every action and has the power and right to punish you for your conduct.  I think that would lead not to your responding in love to God's direct presence, but it would lead to more of a fearful relationship.   But that is just my own personal belief.  

This precisely shows the difference between logic (science) and faith (superstition). With faith, you see someone who won $100 million in a lottery and say, "I see, so the way to get rich is to play a lottery". With logic, you see someone who won $100 million in a lottery, then see millions who got broke putting heaps of money into lotteries, and say, "I do not worship the RNG God strongly enough to play against these odds".
Science is not about faith, but about impartial analysis with consideration of all relevant factors. If you have faith in science, then you are doing it wrong.

I just explained clearly what could provably be a miracle (in the revised definition of the world; in the original it metaphysically cannot exist - it is a pure consequence of logic and has nothing to do with faith). Someone being healed of blindness instantaneously would not be, although it certainly would be an interesting event warranting further studies. If you think that I am being dishonest here, then I cannot say anything to make you think otherwise, since I cannot give you direct access to my mind so you can see what exact thoughts it is having. I will say though that if you a-priori assume that whatever I say comes from a dishonest place, then this conversation is a waste of time, since you might as well reply to a chatbot of your choosing instead. If you have already decided what my thoughts and intentions are, then you have no reason to be here any more.

How is existence of something proven in science? You set up an experiment that gives a positive result if it exists, and a negative if it does not. How is existence of god to be proven? Similarly: you set up an experiment... A god showing or not showing up the way I described could be a part of such an experiment.
Yet in religion, for some reason, it is the opposite: the god must stay as hidden as possible, because revealing itself is "too easy", "too scary" or whatever. Frankly, this is just kindergarten. On one hand, your god wants me to have faith in him - on the other, he throws smoke bombs everywhere making any logical inquiry result in "there is no evidence of his existence". Are you aware of any other entity in the actual observable Universe that acts this way, intentionally or not? This makes no sense whatsoever, and a creator of the Universe acting like this would be a great candidate for the main character in the best comedy show in human history.

If god is omniscient and omnipotent, it is not hard for it to appear before me in a way that will not make me fearful. He can appear as a very beautiful Asian girl with a halo above her head, and I would be convinced after a short conversation - and her benevolence would make me fall in love with her. Making me fall in love with god is so easy... That is, it would be easy if said god actually existed. Again, the silence is quite telling.
For that matter, why is fear not overtaking you? If it is the same god with the same powers, then what makes you think that I would be overwhelmed when you are not? Perhaps you do not truly believe that your god is capable of such a feat?

Phite

I've heard people talking about how God didn’t answer the prayers of the parents of the nine million children who die each year.  However, I believe that such thinking could be said to be shortsighted.  For instance, let's look at the case of little five year old Jimmy Taylor who contracted a terrible disease that caused him to bite an untimely dust.  Everyone wants to know why God didn’t answer his parents’ fervent prayers for his recovery.  Well, little did you know what God knew.

What God knew was that young Jimmy would have grown up to own a  farm on which he would have raised geese.  God also knew that on one particular future Sunday, one of Jimmy's geese--the really mean one--would get loose.  He also knew that a Sunday School bus carrying thirty-four children would be passing by adult Jimmy’s farm that morning.  However, the bus’s air conditioner wouldn't be working that day, and, being an especially hot day, the driver would have her side-window wide open.  

When the bus stops at the intersection in front of adult Jimmy’s farm, the goose would see the bus as some kind of threat to her newly hatched goslings, and as the bus is gaining speed after leaving the intersection, the goose would fly into the open window and go at the driver.  While trying to keep the goose from his face, the driver would lose control, inadvertently stomping the gas while unable to tend the steering wheel. Finally the bus would crash into a bridge abutment, burst into flames, and kill all of the children.

Adult Jimmy would hear the crash and run to the scene.  Having been thrown through the windshield, the goose and driver are lying in the ditch, both dead.  Adult Jimmy recognizes his goose, and, smelling a lawsuit--or worse--grabs the goose and runs farther down the road and throws it into the water-filled ditch.  He finds a rock and places it on the goose’s body.  Suddenly the final scene from the movie “Deliverance” pops into his head, and he quickly finds another rock--a way bigger rock--and adds it to the other rock.  Then he runs back to his house and calls the police to report a "mysterious" bus wreck.

Anyway, just because you can’t see the bigger picture doesn’t mean God can’t.  Think about it; the life of young Jimmy versus the lives of thirty-four Christian children.  And Jimmy wasn’t even a Christian; didn't even own a Bible! For God, it was a no-brainer. Young Jimmy had to go!   

As an aside, just before the bus tragedy that would have happened, that same goose would have gotten loose two weeks before the church bus incident and flogged a kitten to death (I said it was mean).  Of course, God foresaw that that particular kitten would grow up to kill a rat that carried a disease that would devastate  the community . . . including Christian children!!  And that's why God allowed for young Jimmy’s untimely death despite the prayers of so many friends and family. So God killed the goose that would have killed the kitten that would kill the rat which prevented the disease. 

So, I guess that as long as one's prayers are in line with God's purposes, they'll be answered.

Dee

@just_sayin

You claim their is a god  what would the world look like without this god?

just_sayin

Dee said:

@just_sayin

You claim their is a god  what would the world look like without this god?

Dee, great question.  First, I got to admit that part of me was hoping that you were going to argue that we can't believe the miracle of Calanda because you found out the archbishop that verified the miracle was a rich Black guy.  That would have been classic Dee.  You are my favorite.

A classic philosophical question is why is there something rather than nothing?  Nothing is what we should expect.  If there was no God, nothing is what you should expect.  Science says our universe had a beginning.  The Kalam cosmological argument says:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

God is the best known answer for that cause.  I've identified aspects of just how finely tuned our universe needs to be just to exist, not just to permit life.  Roger Penrose, co-author with Stephen Hawking, said the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is unlikely to happen naturally

"...namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.) ...Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe—and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure—we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton’s, Maxwell’s, Einstein’s) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics, described the near impossible likelihood of the presence of carbon and nitrogen in our universe.  The beryllium isotope has the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds, and must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying.  He said:

One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning—The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.

If the energy in the universe differed by just one particle in 10  ^ 120th power there would be no life possible.  As he further said:

the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form.

Dr. Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University observed:

“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. ...even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life—almost contrived—you might say a ‘put-up job’.”

Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be and was so amazed and the numerous unlikely circumstances needed for it to happen said:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.

Now MayCaesar who has incredible faith in science, and believes that even when science says its impossible, trust him, everything is possible for science, would just ignore the obvious conclusion of the evidence and claim science just wanted it that way.  Imagine walking on a beach and finding a 3 story beach house with 10,000 square feet living space, 5 bedrooms, 5 baths, walking closets, state of the art kitchen, pool, jacuzzi, living room with fireplace, and fully furnished.  You would conclude intelligence made such a structure.  But know that it is much more likely for such a structure to be formed by chance than for all the fine tuning that we find in the fundamental forces of the universe to be set as they are.  

So, the quick answer to your question of what would a world without God look like - the answer is it would look like nothing, for it wouldn't exist. 

just_sayin

@MayCaesar

This precisely shows the difference between logic (science) and faith (superstition). With faith, you see someone who won $100 million in a lottery and say, "I see, so the way to get rich is to play a lottery". With logic, you see someone who won $100 million in a lottery, then see millions who got broke putting heaps of money into lotteries, and say, "I do not worship the RNG God strongly enough to play against these odds".
Science is not about faith, but about impartial analysis with consideration of all relevant factors. If you have faith in science, then you are doing it wrong.

You are the one who is ignoring logic.  Your obeisance to science is so great that when science declares that there is no scientific explanation, as in the Barbara Commiskey case, and yet still affirms that she was actually healed of being lame, blind, and half a dozen other issues, you will use the science of the gaps argument and claim, even though science said it is impossible, to trust you, it isn't impossible for science.  

Logic says that if it is scientifically impossible, but it happened anyway, then what happened is beyond the limitations of science.  You have put your faith in science, and would rather call your own god a "terller of lies" than admit its limitations.    I don't know anyone with that much faith or superstition, and I have attended Santeria services in Cuba where they twisted chickens heads off and poured the blood over the heads of people.  just sayin

How is existence of something proven in science? 

Again you fall back to your god of the science argument.  Since medical doctors can review previous cases, and if such a case as Barbara Commiskey's had happened before, it is logical to assume someone wrote about it, then we can look at the historical record and see if previous examples of spontaneous healing of immobility, blindness, collapsed lungs, and intestines not working occurred.  But, what do you know - there aren't any examples of this.  You want to engage in special pleading that your god, science, has the answers, but when it was asked to provide the answer, it FAILED TO.   You are now in denial of the failure of your god.  You are the one not engaging in logic and making pleading appeals to trust your god for the answer to something it has already said isn't possible.


Now if the Barbara Commiskey case is too hard for your god to explain, then explain the Miracle of Calanda where the guy had his leg amputated but it grew back over night.  Now unless your god, science, can perform miracles, there is no scientific explanation.  I know you you are already thinking how you can say, without actually saying 'even when science says it is impossible, trust me, for science its possible'.  Maybe Dee can do some research for you and see if the guy had any bad Yelp reviews in 1640.  LOL (got to love that guy).  

Dee

@just_sayin


Dee, great question.  First, I got to admit that part of me was hoping that you were going to argue that we can't believe the miracle of Calanda because you found out the archbishop that verified the miracle was a rich Black guy. 

No why would I say that? You're the one who didn't know which of your Christian con artists  was which and denied the one you posted a photo of even existed.

The miracle of Calanda has as much credibility  as Rapunzel or Rumplestiltsskin being true to life  then again you believe in talking snakes and donkeys so we cannot expect to much of you.


 That would have been classic Dee.  You are my favorite.

I'm fond of you also I have a soft spot for relgious loonies.

A classic philosophical question is why is there something rather than nothing?

What's nothing?


  Nothing is what we should expect. 

What is nothing?

 If there was no God, nothing is what you should expect

What is nothing?

.  Science says our universe had a beginning. 

Did it indeed? Show me the poll where scientists universally asserted this?

The Kalam cosmological argument says:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.

Really? OK prove it? How have you examined every existent thing in the Universe to prove this?

God is the best known answer for that cause.

Nonsense , unproven gods are  the excuse the ignorant use in an attempt to defend their collective ignorance.

  I've identified aspects of just how finely tuned our universe needs to be just to exist, not just to permit life.

Proves nothing, it's a fallacious argument as it's an Arguement from incredulity.

  Roger Penrose, co-author with Stephen Hawking, said the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is unlikely to happen naturally

Pleas stop lying about Hawking's he famously said " There is no god , no one directs the Universe" so how does that sit with you seeing as you're such a big fan ?

Einstein’s) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics, described the near impossible likelihood of the presence of carbon and nitrogen in our universe.  The beryllium isotope has the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds, and must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying.  

Indeed and Weinberg is an Atheist ......you really should stop appealing to authorities you know nothing about.

Dr. Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University observed:

Another quote from an Atheist well done you 

BTW Hoyle famously claimed that maybe Aliens were responsible for life on Earth .....you sure know how to pick them

So, the quick answer to your question of what would a world without God look like - the answer is it would look like nothing, for it wouldn't exist. 

Yet another in a long list of unproven assertions from you.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

You are the one who is ignoring logic.  Your obeisance to science is so great that when science declares that there is no scientific explanation, as in the Barbara Commiskey case, and yet still affirms that she was actually healed of being lame, blind, and half a dozen other issues, you will use the science of the gaps argument and claim, even though science said it is impossible, to trust you, it isn't impossible for science.  

Logic says that if it is scientifically impossible, but it happened anyway, then what happened is beyond the limitations of science.  You have put your faith in science, and would rather call your own god a "terller of lies" than admit its limitations.    I don't know anyone with that much faith or superstition, and I have attended Santeria services in Cuba where they twisted chickens heads off and poured the blood over the heads of people.  just sayin

This is a bold claim, considering that in the same paragraph you once again misrepresented my position. I never claimed that "it isn't impossible for science". My claim was that there was no reason to assume that it was. You have a very hard time to address even one point that I made, constantly addressing something else that was not there - yet you have the gull to claim that "I am the one who is ignoring logic"? This is quite low.

You are right: if something is scientifically impossible, but happened anyway, then it is beyond the limitations of science. Problem is, it is very hard to prove that something is scientifically impossible - and the burden of proving it is on the one who is making the claim.

Lastly, science absolutely has limitations - one of which is that it, the way it is supposed to work, cannot study phenomena that do not form any regular patterns in the observable Universe. Of course, this is likely a limitation of conscious mind in general: we cannot learn anything about anything that forms no visible pattern, as pattern recognition is pretty much the only epistemological tool it has.
But the fact that science is limited in this way does not imply that half-baked fantasy stories are a good substitute for it.

just_sayin said:

Again you fall back to your god of the science argument.  Since medical doctors can review previous cases, and if such a case as Barbara Commiskey's had happened before, it is logical to assume someone wrote about it, then we can look at the historical record and see if previous examples of spontaneous healing of immobility, blindness, collapsed lungs, and intestines not working occurred.  But, what do you know - there aren't any examples of this.  You want to engage in special pleading that your god, science, has the answers, but when it was asked to provide the answer, it FAILED TO.   You are now in denial of the failure of your god.  You are the one not engaging in logic and making pleading appeals to trust your god for the answer to something it has already said isn't possible.

Now if the Barbara Commiskey case is too hard for your god to explain, then explain the Miracle of Calanda where the guy had his leg amputated but it grew back over night.  Now unless your god, science, can perform miracles, there is no scientific explanation.  I know you you are already thinking how you can say, without actually saying 'even when science says it is impossible, trust me, for science its possible'.  Maybe Dee can do some research for you and see if the guy had any bad Yelp reviews in 1640.  LOL (got to love that guy).  

Once again, I am not "pleading that science has the answers". I am going to plead now though, at this point, that I am talking to someone who has very poor reading comprehension when it comes to these discussions - likely intentional (for you do seem to be very literate, based on the quality of your writing).

And no, you are wrong, I am not "already thinking that". What I am thinking is that it is quite naive to assume that I am going to indulge you with talking about every single "miracle" case you bring up, when you have not indulged me with even remotely accurate understanding of my arguments. Just as before, I am waiting for you to address any of my points for the further discussion: I have addressed enough of yours for the time being.

Lastly, please stop projecting. I know that it is common for religious people to assume that everyone else also relies on some sort of faith - but this simply happens not to be the case. Science is an epistemological tool that can sometimes misfire, like any other tool; it is not "god". Science differs from religion in that it, when done properly, does not proclaim any universal truths about reality. It can only propose models of reality, test them and find them plausible or not.

just_sayin

@Dee

The miracle of Calanda has as much credibility  as Rapunzel or Rumplestiltsskin being true to life  then again you believe in talking snakes and donkeys so we cannot expect to much of you.

Do Rapunzel or Rumplestilskin have 5 doctor's swore testimony to the event?  Do they have at least 30 eyewitnesses on record about the event?  Come on now Dee put up or .  Let's see the evidence.  If not everyone will know that you were just talking out your Dee-hole.

What's nothing?

"Nothing is what rocks dream of" - Aristotle

What is nothing?

The absence of anything.

What is nothing?

The value of a Dee argument.

Really? OK prove it? How have you examined every existent thing in the Universe to prove this?

Can you think of anything that began to exist, that was not eternal, that did not have a cause?  I'll wait for your answer.  No point in that because I know the value of your arguments already - see definition above.  

Pleas stop lying about Hawking's he famously said " There is no god , no one directs the Universe" so how does that sit with you seeing as you're such a big fan ?

Thank you for proving the value of your arguments again.  As far as I know, Penrose is not a person of faith either.  Both admit the ridiculous odds that the low entropy of the universe at the beginning could occur randomly.  You don't have to agree with me on everything, to agree that the universe appears to be finely tuned.  So their agreement with that scientific fact means something - the opposite of a Dee argument.

Indeed and Weinberg is an Atheist ......you really should stop appealing to authorities you know nothing about.

Yep, he is an atheist.  The point he makes is still valid though.  Considering the half life of the beryllium isotope, we should not be seeing a universe with as much nitrogen and carbon as we find.  Carbon and nitrogen's existence is something - or if you prefer, carbon and nitrogen have the opposite value of a Dee argument.

Another quote from an Atheist well done you 

Its amazing how I can find numerous scientists who make the argument that the universe is finely tuned.  It's like my argument means something.  

BTW Hoyle famously claimed that maybe Aliens were responsible for life on Earth 

I think you have confused with Sir Hoyle with Crick, who co-discovered DNA.  Crick put forward a theory of panspermia when he realized that DNA was too complex to have arisen by chance.  

Don't forget to prove your assertions @Dee.  I look forward to seeing the medical documentation from Rumpelstilskin's doctors/  

Barnardot

@just_sayin @Dee ;Rumplestilskin have 5 doctor's swore testimony to the event?  Do they have at least 30 eyewitnesses on record about the event? 

No they did not and nor did Calanda. Right? Yes right. 

There were know 5 doctors and at least 30 witnesses at all. And even though you didn't actually say that and just made rhetorical questions it is typical of your total dishonesty misleading and lying. You just will never stop it will you? Just like the con woman who jumped out of a wheel chair after a con artist preacher prayed.

Dee

Ah right you wish to start playing dirty by dishing out insults, you truly show the true colors of a so called American Christian and hilariously being a pompus , hypocrite dare lecture others on moralty .....Jesus would hate you 


***Do Rapunzel or Rumplestilskin have 5 doctor's swore testimony to the event? ***

Oh you didnt know they were fictitious characters in a fairy tale .....WOW!

Next you will be saying you believe in talking snakes .......Wait!

 ***Do they have at least 30 eyewitnesses on record about the event? ***

Again they're fictitious characters jn fairy tales , you really think they were real......WOW!

 ***Come on now Dee put up or . Let's see the evidence. ***

Evidence for what exactly?

 ***If not everyone will know that you were just talking out your Dee-hole.***

Post up the 30 eyewitness accounts of these individuals stating they knew the guy when he had no leg ......wait for the excuses now from Just lyin 

***"Nothing is what rocks dream of" - Aristotle***

You believe rocks dream.....seriously?

***The absence of anything.***

How do you go about proving your assertions?

How did you get to a universal state of nothingness to reach your absurd conclusions?

***The value of a Dee argument.***

Oh , I thought it was what your god does when he watches kids being raped , which you agreed was a totally moral thing to do.

OK prove it? How have you examined every existent thing in the Universe to prove this?

***Can you think of anything that began to exist, that was not eternal, that did not have a cause?***

I've made no claims , you've made several the burden of proof is on you not me, this is pretty basic stuff really.

Now you're babbling about eternal existent things again without zero proof for your nonsense.

 *** I'll wait for your answer. No point in that because I know the value of your arguments already - see definition above. ***

But the buden is with you not me you ignorant d-mmy.

Pleas stop lying about Hawking's he famously said " There is no god , no one directs the Universe" so how does that sit with you seeing as you're such a big fan ?

***Thank you for proving the value of your arguments again. As far as I know, Penrose is not a person of faith either. Both admit the ridiculous odds that the low entropy of the universe at the beginning could occur randomly. You don't have to agree with me on everything, to agree that the universe appears to be finely tuned. So their agreement with that scientific fact means something - the opposite of a Dee argument.***

They still dont believe in a god , when scientists mention fine tuning they arent talking about a god you clot.

Indeed and Weinberg is an Atheist ......you really should stop appealing to authorities you know nothing about.

***Yep, he is an atheist. The point he makes is still valid though. Considering the half life of the beryllium isotope, we should not be seeing a universe with as much nitrogen and carbon as we find. Carbon and nitrogen's existence is something - or if you prefer, carbon and nitrogen have the opposite value of a Dee argument.***

You dont seem to know that the scientists you keep miquoting still don't believe in a god.

***Another quote from an Atheist well done you 

Its amazing how I can find numerous scientists who make the argument that the universe is finely tuned. It's like my argument means something.***

Yes they all agree fine tuning doesnt = god , you really are desperate to find even one person apart from a loony christian charlatan who agrees with your tripe.

Hey maybe your moon headed hungry wife agrees you're right just to get you to shut the f-ck up with your constant self pitying preaching.

BTW Hoyle famously claimed that maybe Aliens were responsible for life on Earth 

***I think you have confused with Sir Hoyle with Crick, who co-discovered DNA.***

No I didn't you ignorant rube, you never stop lying do you?

Would you like Hoyles quote on aliens?

 ***Crick put forward a theory of panspermia when he realized that DNA was too complex to have arisen by chance.***

Maybe you could get Crick to blow you off if he were alive ......

Crick also said .....Speaking to The Telegraph, Crick, 86, said: "The god hypothesis is rather discredited." Indeed, he says his distaste for religion was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the sensational 1953 discovery.

OUCH just lyin caught lying yet again.

***Don't forget to prove your assertions @Dee. I look forward to seeing the medical documentation from Rumpelstilskin's doctors/***  

JUST LYIN THINKS RUMPLESTILTSKIN IS A .....TRUE STORY ......ROFLMAO....

 

                   Rumpelstiltskin

Rumpelstiltskin is a German fairy tale. It was collected by the Brothers Grimm in the 1812 edition of Children's and Household Tales. 

@just_sayin

Dee

@just_sayin

***Maybe Dee can do some research for you and see if the guy had any bad Yelp reviews in 1640.  LOL (got to love that guy). ***

As usual when you cannot defend your nonsensical rants  you resort to your usual childish attempts at insult.

Maybe when you finally get over licking your hero Lane Craig's b-tt you might make an actual argument of your own .....but we all know that won't happen.

just_sayin

Dee said:

@just_sayin

***Maybe Dee can do some research for you and see if the guy had any bad Yelp reviews in 1640.  LOL (got to love that guy). ***

As usual when you cannot defend your nonsensical rants  you resort to your usual childish attempts at insult.

Maybe when you finally get over licking your hero Lane Craig's b-tt you might make an actual argument of your own .....but we all know that won't happen.

Bless your little ole heart. You seem to not be aware that the  miracle of Calanda is extensively documented.  

Dee

@just_sayin

You're always great for a good ole laugh,you hardly think anyone but religious nuts take such claims as serious and you wonder why......I see you fled from your ridiculous assertions regards free will and objective morality .....Good old yellow true to form

Openminded

@MayCaesar @just_sayin
Prayer benefits the person who is praying. I do not believe it can change the outcome of what is being prayed for. I do believe it has wonderful emotional benefits for the person praying though.

just_sayin

Openminded said:

@MayCaesar @just_sayin
Prayer benefits the person who is praying. I do not believe it can change the outcome of what is being prayed for. I do believe it has wonderful emotional benefits for the person praying though.

This was my favorite debate of 2023 - and not just because I dominated it.  It really brought out the personalities of many of the 'usual suspects' who debate here. 

You are right that there is a lot of evidence that prayer benefits the one praying.  But the evidence shows it is much more than just 'emotional'.  Here's a quick recap of a previous post:  

just_sayin said:

Let's review the evidence:

At least 200 million eye witnesses to healings or miracles.

I posted the Pew survey of Pentecostals/Charismatics from 10 countries who were asked if they had seen a miracle or healing.  If you do the math of how many Pentecostals/Charismatics are in the countries and multiply that by the percent of those who said they had seen a miracle or healing that's at least 200 million people from just 10 countries.

Spirit and Power – A 10-Country Survey of Pentecostals - Pew Research Center

You dismissed the eye witness testimony of millions of people out of hand.  You suggested the unproven conspiracy theory that they are all lying or that it is just mass hallucinations.  But you have not interviewed these people.  Your accusations are without evidence and merit.  If I am wrong, then produce the evidence that all 200 million of these people lied.  Occam's razor suggests that it is much more likely that you are mistaken, than these 200 million people.

I'm sure that racist bigots like Hume and those who post his stuff would argue that since these people come from 'those countries" that their eyewitness accounts must be false because they deem them 'ignorant' (yep, that is Hume's racist argument).  But even in rich countries, the majority of people who pray affirm that God has answered their prayer in the last year.

Further supporting this claim is the Radiant Foundation study of 1100 people:

87% of Americans who pray say their prayers were answered in the last year: study

Extrapolated that's over 100 million Americans claiming that they had a prayer answered in the last year alone.  Now, I'm sure you'll claim that that's not hard evidence and that medical documentation is needed.  Well, I've provided at least 5 medically documented examples of miraculous healings:

 Medically Documented Miracles

1. Case report of instantaneous resolution of juvenile macular degeneration blindness after proximal intercessory prayer

2. Case Report of gastroparesis healing: 16 years of a chronic syndrome resolved after proximal intercessory prayer

3. https://seangeorge.com.au/my-story/my-story/

And the documented evidence here:
https://seangeorge.com.au/my-story/medical-details/

4. Raising the Dead: A Doctor Encounters the Miraculous

5. Barbara Cummisky Snyder is instantly healed of MS and blindness -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAXM2W-OHQE

https://1c15.co.uk/barbara-snyder-barbara-cummiskey-snyder-healed-from-multiple-sclerosis/

Scott Kolbaba, Physician's Untold Stories: Miraculous Experiences  Doctors are Hesitant to Share with their Patients, or Anyone! (North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace, 2016) (image of x-ray on page 121)

https://www.scribd.com/document/534776708/Chicago-Tribune-Mon-Sep-26-1983-clipping

Even though some of these account appear in medical journals, have multiple attestations from medical doctors from the Mayo Clinic, Yale, Harvard and Stanford, with extensive records of the patients condition before and after prayer, you have claimed these are 'made up'.  It seems more likely you are in denial, than these examples are false.  

Now have you provided medical studies that show you can repeatedly make the blind see, the lame walk, and the dead come back to life after being dead for 85 minutes or more?  No you haven't.  You claim these aren't miracles; then reproduce them.  Oh and you better do a study that meets your own imposed example, so I expect a double blind study of at least 1000 patients where half are given a placebo and you raise the half from the dead.  Hurry up.   Where is your evidence?  Each of these people provided evidence even though they knew hatemongering atheists would slander them and attack them, just for sharing their story.  

Most Medical Studies Show Prayer Works

I've provided lots of peer reviewed studies that show that prayer works (in fact the majority of prayer studies agree that prayer works).  Here is just a sampling:

From Pub Med:

Effects of intercessory prayer on patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Results: Patients receiving in-person intercessory prayer showed significant overall improvement during 1-year follow-up. ..
Conclusions: In-person intercessory prayer may be a useful adjunct to standard medical care for certain patients with rheumatoid arthritis. 

From Sage Journals:

A Randomized Trial of the Effect of Prayer on Depression and Anxiety

Results:

At the completion of the trial, participants receiving the prayer intervention showed significant improvement of depression and anxiety, as well as increases of daily spiritual experiences and optimism compared to controls (p < 0.01 in all cases). Subjects in the prayer group maintained these significant improvements (p < 0.01 in all cases) for a duration of at least 1 month after the final prayer session. Participants in the control group did not show significant changes during the study. Cortisol levels did not differ significantly between intervention and control groups, or between pre- and post-prayer conditions.

Conclusions:

Direct contact person-to-person prayer may be useful as an adjunct to standard medical care for patients with depression and anxiety. Further research in this area is indicated.

The Effect of Prayer on Depression and Anxiety: Maintenance of Positive Influence One Year after Prayer Intervention

Results:

Evaluations post-prayer at 1 month and 1 year showed significantly less depression and anxiety, more optimism, and greater levels of spiritual experience than did the baseline (pre-prayer) measures (p < 0.01 in all cases).

Conclusions:

Subjects maintained significant improvements for a duration of at least 1 year after the final prayer session. Direct person-to-person prayer may be useful as an adjunct to standard medical care for patients with depression and anxiety. Further research in this area is indicated.

From JAMA

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit

Results  Compared with the usual care group (n=524), the prayer group (n=466) had lower mean±SEM weighted (6.35±0.26 vs 7.13±0.27; P=.04) and unweighted (2.7±0.1 vs 3.0±0.1; P=.04) CCU course scores. Lengths of CCU and hospital stays were not different.

Conclusions  Remote, intercessory prayer was associated with lower CCU course scores. This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.

This was a double blind study that fits your arbitrary requirements for size and approach, yet you claim it is worthless.  The truth is that you have been proven wrong and hypocritical.  The JAMA study does indeed claim that those who were prayed for had discernable health benefits.

Systematic Prayer Studies Show that Prayer Works Too

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE QUALITY OF RESEARCH ON HANDS-ON AND DISTANCE HEALING: CLINICAL AND LABORATORY STUDIES,

examined the quality of studies of hands-on healing and distance healing that were published between 1955 and 2001. There were 90 identified studies of which 45 had been conducted in clinical settings and 45 in laboratory settings. they reported that 71% of the clinical studies and 62% of the laboratory studies reported positive outcomes; and that the overall internal validity for the studies on distance healing was 75% for the clinical investigations and 81% for the laboratory investigations. So the bulk of studies shows prayer works.

in a Pub Med systematic review of distance prayer 

The Efficacy of “Distant Healing A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

" Of these studies, 13 (57%) yielded statistically significant treatment effects favoring distant healing, nine showed no superiority of distant healing over control interventions and one showed a negative effect for distant healing. "

Systematic reviews are considered the gold standard of studies, and the bulk of them agree that prayer has health benefits for the one being prayed for.  

While you have said the evidence is 'bogus', it seems obvious that is just your opinion that it is clouded by your own biases.  I'm still waiting on your studies that replicate raising the dead at least 85 minutes after being declared dead, making those blind by macular degeneration  see after 22 years of being blind, making the lame walk (and just for fun, make their blindness instantly go away too as the case I provided showed). I've backed up my claims with evidence, but you haven't backed your claim that these miracles are just natural occurrences that can be replicated.  It seems obvious that it is your claims that are ' totally bogus made up out of context crap'.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;This was my favorite debate of 2023 - and not just because I dominated it. 

Yes you dominated it by posting mountains of false and misleading links that were full of spam or deleted and you repeated them time after time like an absessed sick mad man. Then you deliberately set out to gratuitously lie and offend insult and threaten as many descent innocent people as you can.  

So you proberly thought this was your favorite so you could excel at what your naturally good at. Being a lowsy lieing deceiving low dowm peace of skim.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;This was my favorite debate of 2023 - and not just because I dominated it. 

Yes you dominated it by posting mountains of false and misleading links that were full of spam or deleted and you repeated them time after time like an absessed sick mad man. Then you deliberately set out to gratuitously lie and offend insult and threaten as many descent innocent people as you can.  

So you proberly thought this was your favorite so you could excel at what your naturally good at. Being a lowsy lieing deceiving low dowm peace of skim.

I remember when I spanked you - and not like you pay the Dominatrix to do.  You once again said I made up stuff and I then unloaded on you with multiple quotes from doctor's who claimed the lame, blind woman with collapsed lungs and intestines not working had received a miracle.   Do you remember this embarrassing moment for you: 

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin you said that crap before and not one of them you said there said it was a miracle and the only one you said was a miracle didn’t. You made it up and paraphrazed it. You are getting worser by the minute with your lies.

Everything I posted was an actual quote.  
From the Chicago Tribune, September 26, 1983 (I even highlighted the quotes for you);  




Central DuPaul Hospital - Medical record for Barbara Cummiskey from Dr Harold P Adolph


Also see http://searchingdeeper.com/SearchingForMiracles.html#:~:text=The%20next%20day,in%20every%20way.


For @Barnadot - denial is not just a river in Egypt, but a state of mind.

Barnardot

@just_sayin

Everything I posted was an actual quote.  
From the Chicago Tribune, September 26, 1983 (I even highlighted the quotes for you);  

And you know very well that that bit of deception by posting here say anecdotes has been pointed out to you a number of times don’t you and you know very well that posting the same thing over again doesn’t change it don’t you? Yes you do so stop your relentless lieing about your lieing. The least you can do is apologize to the people you offended and insulted with your repeated . But even when you were politely asked to do that you turned back and changed your mind and said only if an extreme source denied your totally sick lieing crap.

Your a jelly need peace of malicious scum with not an honest useful bone in your body.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin

Everything I posted was an actual quote.  
From the Chicago Tribune, September 26, 1983 (I even highlighted the quotes for you);  

And you know very well that that bit of deception by posting here say anecdotes has been pointed out to you a number of times don’t you and you know very well that posting the same thing over again doesn’t change it don’t you? Yes you do so stop your relentless lieing about your lieing. The least you can do is apologize to the people you offended and insulted with your repeated . But even when you were politely asked to do that you turned back and changed your mind and said only if an extreme source denied your totally sick lieing crap.

Your a jelly need peace of malicious scum with not an honest useful bone in your body.

I got to love you .  'hearsay anecdotes'?  For just Barbara Comiskey's miracle of being healed on her death bed of being unable to walk or set up, blind, collapsed lung, and intestines not working - I have provided probably 12 -15 pieces of evidence.  Every time I provide more evidence, you claim I never provided evidence.  I have provided the Chicago Tribune news article of her miracle.  I provided the hospital's statement it was a miracle.  I provided you quotes from 4 of the doctor's who treated her, all either Mayo Clinic doctors, or had been trained there.  I quoted from 2 books that her doctor's wrote about her miracle.  I quoted from a medical article another doctor wrote about her case.  I posted her written testimony.  I posted a podcast of her.  I posted tv interviews with her.  I provided you pages of medical visits and records.  And each time you claimed I hadn't posted any evidence.

It almost seems like your role in this debate has been to be a NPC whose function is to keep denying any evidence has been provided, so I can just provide more and knock it out of the park again and again.  And for that I thank you.  You have been a debater's best frenemy.  Hey, I got to go see my mom and dad.  I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas.

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

you didn't respond dm? 

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;- I have provided probably 12 -15 pieces of evidence.  Every time I provide more evidence you claim I never provided evidence. ……And as you know very well I have never ever said such a thing have I ? So you are lieing through your teeth as usual aren’t you? Because you don’t have an honest bone in your body do you? 

And I did say many times that’s the evidence you posted was fake and taken from extreme websites and most of them are closed or moved to different addresses did I not? Yes I did. And you did not reply to one of those did you? No you didn’t. So you are the lowziest peace of low down dirty dishonest lieing scum ever to come on this site for a long time.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Proper Focus

Instead of requesting celestial aid, shouldn't we focus on real-world solutions? Battling disease requires medical research and intervention, not begging for divine intervention.