Does Praying Work?

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Barbara Cummisky Snyder - medically confirmed healing of MS

As a teenager, Barbara Cummisky, was diagnosed with MS. From the ages of 15 to 31 she spent 3/4ths of her time hospitalized. Her doctor, Dr Harold Adolph of the Mayo Clinic wrote:

Barbara was one of the most hopelessly ill patients I ever saw. She was diagnosed at the Mayo Clinic as having multiple sclerosis. She had been admitted to the local hospital seven times in the year that I was first asked to see her. Each time she was expected to die. One diaphragm was completely paralyzed so that the lung was nonfunctional, and the other worked less than 50 percent. She had a tracheotomy tube in her neck for breathing, always required extra oxygen, and could speak only in short sentences because the muscles of her intestine did not work. Nor would her bladder function. She had not been able to walk for seven years. Her hand and arm movements were poorly coordinated. And she was blind except for two small areas in each eye. (Harold P Adolph with Mark D Williams. Today's Decisions, Tomorrow's Destiney (Spencer; WI: White Birch Printing, 1999).

She was being fed through a feeding tube, her intestines had swollen because they no longer functioned, and she could not put her foot down flat, nor was she able to stand. Dr. Thomas Marshall had assumed her palliative care in what appeared to be the final weeks of her life. He wrote that her body was "contracted in a permanent fetal position". "Her hands were so permanently flexed that her fingers nearly touched her wrists." He had the family sign a DNR order and had her send home, expecting her to die within a few days.

Someone had called a local Christian radio station, WMBI, and requested prayer for her. She received 450 letters later from people who prayed for her. After the call to prayer... on June 7, 1981..

While at home in bed, with the home care nurse in the room. she hear an audible voice boom over her shoulder that said "My child: Get up and walk.: She had not walked in 7 years but asked the nurse and some church friends in the room to run and get her family. She felt a sense of urgency and got up on her own. Normally it had taken at least 2 minutes and 2 people to help sit her up or get her to her wheel chair because of her condition. She began walking, and then it struck her that she was no longer blind, she could see. Barbara then ran down the stairs and outside, with the nurse chasing her with a wheelchair and oxygen tank, telling her to sit down and get some oxygen, but she instead went out into the street and danced.

Her mother commented that she once again had calves, which had been atrophied. Her nurse took her pulse and it was normal for the first time that she can remember.

The next day Barbara was in the doctor's office of Dr Thomas Marshall who examined her for 3 1/2 hours, along with virtually every doctor in the office. X-rays showed that her collapsed lung was no longer collapsed.(the X-ray, along with other medical documentation, and the doctor's statements are available to see in 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).

Dr Marshall says he said to Barbara "I'll be the first to tell you: You're completely healed. I can also tell you that this is medically impossible." Dr Adolph said "her breather was normal. The diaphragms were functioning normally." He reconnected her bowel in an operation because her intestines were now working as they should. And now after 4 decades (she died recently) she lived without any symptoms.

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

Now I'm sure, some will cling to their faith claim that there are no examples of answered prayer. They will make up conspiracy theories that the Mayo Clinic made up the story or that the medical documentation was faked. But the eyewitness testimony of Barbara, all of her doctor's (with multiple of them writing about it and providing medical records), and numerous other eye witnesses says that a lady who had MS, was blind and could not walk, was literally dancing in the street after she was prayed for.

I'm adding one of her doctor's testimony. A doctor's statement regarding her condition, and a news clipping. Enjoy:
https://1c15.co.uk/barbara-snyder-barbara-cummiskey-snyder-healed-from-multiple-sclerosis/

Barnardot

@just_sayin Come on, you have been found out on all of those links already and they have all been explained to you why they are all editorial spam. Do you know what an editorial is.
For example once again from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/485161 This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.
What does that say. Totally nothing thats what. Absolutely and totally zilch and all the other spam links you posted are the same as you have already been told and clearly explained about.
Your medically documented examples and statistics say totally nothing conclusive at all about prayer working and all those statitics are totally worthless. Im afraid that positive outcomes says totally nothing and is not evidence at all even to a 3 year old.
So you can keep re hashing the same links but there is not one bit of evidence what so ever in any one of them and neither have you been able to quote not even one single sentence from any one of them that any where near re sembles evidence. And you know very well that the Delia Knox case is a complete fraud and there is not one bit of medical evidence to show she was healed. The ceremony was completely staged and she was paid for it just like all the Benny Hinn staged crap.
But once again people can keep telling you about these scams but they only do this to attract people like you who want to believe it. In this world there are plenty of charlatans who make money out of guulible people who will always believe what they see on the out side. And these dishonest people like Delia will keep on doing it so long as they have a google eye audience to take the advantage and the money from.
So you hole entire argument has not even got off the ground and only gaga google eyed impressional dweebs will ever get suckered in by that suggestive crap that says totally nothing.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;I was at the beach.

Oh yes of course. Thats the reason why you had to hurry and that you will answer just that one post. Of course we believe you.

I did not come in the last shower and I can recall so many times when debaters on this site have used exactly the same words to wriggle out of being court out.

When you listen to so many lies and crap and get suckered in by it guess what. Your going to tell lies to defend it. And heaps of them to.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin Come on, you have been found out on all of those links already and they have all been explained to you why they are all editorial spam. Do you know what an editorial is.
For example once again from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/485161 This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.
What does that say. Totally nothing thats what. Absolutely and totally zilch and all the other spam links you posted are the same as you have already been told and clearly explained about.
Your medically documented examples and statistics say totally nothing conclusive at all about prayer working and all those statitics are totally worthless. Im afraid that positive outcomes says totally nothing and is not evidence at all even to a 3 year old.
So you can keep re hashing the same links but there is not one bit of evidence what so ever in any one of them and neither have you been able to quote not even one single sentence from any one of them that any where near re sembles evidence. And you know very well that the Delia Knox case is a complete fraud and there is not one bit of medical evidence to show she was healed. The ceremony was completely staged and she was paid for it just like all the Benny Hinn staged crap.
But once again people can keep telling you about these scams but they only do this to attract people like you who want to believe it. In this world there are plenty of charlatans who make money out of guulible people who will always believe what they see on the out side. And these dishonest people like Delia will keep on doing it so long as they have a google eye audience to take the advantage and the money from.
So you hole entire argument has not even got off the ground and only gaga google eyed impressional dweebs will ever get suckered in by that suggestive crap that says totally nothing.

I am calling you out for your lies. Your special pleading isn't going to work. The JAMA article found an 11% health benefit in their scale for those who were prayed for. Stop lying and claiming it didn't. Here is the quote AGAIN FOR you:

We found an 11% reduction in scores in the prayer group (6.35±0.26) compared with the usual care group (7.13±0.27) (P=.04). Using the unweighted MAHI-CCU score, which simply counted elements in the original scoring system without assigning point values, the prayer group had 10% fewer elements (P=.04) than the usual care group.

and

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.

Interesting to note in that study was one of the reasons they suggested that may have impacted the scores was that some of the patients being prayed for were praying for themselves also, and had others praying for them. To me, that doesn't weaken the argument that prayer works.

This study was a double blind study, I remember you saying something about that needing to be the case.

The fact is your lies have been called out. You are now trying to claim the research I keep showing is bad research. The JAMA study is not bad research. The accounts from the Harvard and Stanford professor are not bad accounts, nor the systematic review of prayer that she oversaw, nor is the account from the Yale Cardiologist of the guy who came back to life after being legally declared dead. The systematic reviews of prayer I have presented showed that a majority of prayer studies show positive health benefits of praying for the patient.

Regarding the "scams" - the blind woman healed - documented evidence of her healing in a medical journal, the guy healed of his gastric issue - documented medical evidence presented in a medical journal, the guy who came back to life after being declared dead and death certificate was written out, has documented evidence of his story by the Yale Cardiologist who was there. The woman who had MS, was blind and unable to walk - has had at least 3 doctor's, all who have been employed by the Mayo Clinic, testify about her miracle. All 3 were her doctor's and they have stated emphatically it was a miracle and there were no medical way she could have recovered. They provided medical records, charts, images, and testimony in journals, books, news stories, videos, etc.

The only one lying about the research and accounts, and engaging in special pleading is you.

And yes, I was at the beach - Topsail NC, celebrating a friend's birthday.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Since you keep using the same several examples criticisms of which have already been offered, but shrugged off by you, I do not think this line of discussion is going to go anywhere. Instead, I would be curious to discuss a bigger epistemological question: what constitutes strong evidence in the first place.

For instance, there have been literally thousands of testimonies of the bigfoot's existence throughout human history. Some of those testimonies have been verified: people went to the sites the alleged witnesses pointed to and did see something there that could be interpreted as evidence of the bigfoot's existence.
So let me ask you a semi-Socratic question: if the examples you mentioned constitute strong evidence of reality of prayer being literally a process of communication with god, or if testimonies of some ancient folks constitute strong evidence of Jesus' resurrection - then do the aforementioned testimonies constitute strong evidence of the bigfoot's existence? Why or why not? Or how about other creatures that allegedly exist?

Aliens kidnapping people.
The Loch Ness monster
Ghosts
Levitating sentient heads
The vodyanoy
Vampires
Werewolves
Santa Claus
Halflings

I am curious to hear which of the abovementioned creatures' existence you believe in and which you do not, and what differentiates the two groups.

Now, I will answer this question for myself. To me, the chief difference between the two groups is existence of reproducible evidence. How do I know that bears exist, but werebears do not? I can go out in the wilds and observe a bear firsthand, or watch clear photo/video evidence of bears, or go to a museum and look at a bear's bones, or open a research book on mammals and read about endless findings on bears and their biology. I cannot do the same for werebears, all the claims about existence of which can only be taken on faith and cannot be verified in any way.
To me, religious claims are the same, as well as claims about the divine nature of prayer. I can go and measure various biological indicators in someone before and after prayer and find that, generally, many of them improve - but I cannot go and verify the claim that on the other end of this magic telephone is some entity called "god" that listens to all prayers and answers to them. Where is the audiotape of a single answer? "Answer" seems to be a pure fantasy.

If there is some inconsistency in my thinking, or if one of its premises is wrong, let me know. I tend to be my own worst critic, and I honestly cannot find a single hole I could poke in this reasoning.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar said:

Since you keep using the same several examples criticisms of which have already been offered, but shrugged off by you, I do not think this line of discussion is going to go anywhere. Instead, I would be curious to discuss a bigger epistemological question: what constitutes strong evidence in the first place.
For instance, there have been literally thousands of testimonies of the bigfoot's existence throughout human history. Some of those testimonies have been verified: people went to the sites the alleged witnesses pointed to and did see something there that could be interpreted as evidence of the bigfoot's existence.
So let me ask you a semi-Socratic question: if the examples you mentioned constitute strong evidence of reality of prayer being literally a process of communication with god, or if testimonies of some ancient folks constitute strong evidence of Jesus' resurrection - then do the aforementioned testimonies constitute strong evidence of the bigfoot's existence? Why or why not? Or how about other creatures that allegedly exist?
Aliens kidnapping people.
The Loch Ness monster
Ghosts
Levitating sentient heads
The vodyanoy
Vampires
Werewolves
Santa Claus
Halflings
I am curious to hear which of the abovementioned creatures' existence you believe in and which you do not, and what differentiates the two groups.

Now, I will answer this question for myself. To me, the chief difference between the two groups is existence of reproducible evidence. How do I know that bears exist, but werebears do not? I can go out in the wilds and observe a bear firsthand, or watch clear photo/video evidence of bears, or go to a museum and look at a bear's bones, or open a research book on mammals and read about endless findings on bears and their biology. I cannot do the same for werebears, all the claims about existence of which can only be taken on faith and cannot be verified in any way.
To me, religious claims are the same, as well as claims about the divine nature of prayer. I can go and measure various biological indicators in someone before and after prayer and find that, generally, many of them improve - but I cannot go and verify the claim that on the other end of this magic telephone is some entity called "god" that listens to all prayers and answers to them. Where is the audiotape of a single answer? "Answer" seems to be a pure fantasy.

If there is some inconsistency in my thinking, or if one of its premises is wrong, let me know. I tend to be my own worst critic, and I honestly cannot find a single hole I could poke in this reasoning.

First, a comment on the so called criticisms that have been offered. With the story of Delia Knox’s miracle healing, (she was paralyzed from the waist down after a car crash) the accusation was then made that she was a fraud. No proof was offered of this charge. There is

video of her accident by a local tv news station,
doctor’s testimony of her condition,
numerous videos of her in her wheel chair even while at her own wedding,
there are eye witnesses accounts from her mother, from her pastor, from co-workers, of her condition
There is video of her getting up and walking out of her chair
There are dozens of news stories about her walking
There is video of her walking on stage 3 weeks after her first steps, walking around the stage for 45 minutes leading worship
There is video of her mother, father, and sister seeing her walk again for the first time and their reaction
There is video of her own testimony

There is not any evidence that she ‘faked it’ as was claimed. Someone wanted to see her medical records. I don’t have access to her medical records, so the accusation was made that since I can’t produce medical records the woman who gets up and walks for the first time in over 2 decades, didn’t get up and walk as a miracle. See how the goal posts moved?

So, I provided medically documented examples (at least 5 so far) of examples of healing from blindness, gastric issues, death, and the documented healing of Barbara Cummiskey Snyder who was healed of MS and blindness - with no less than 3 medical doctors, all with Mayo Clinic training, who testified that it was a miracle and provided medical records to back up the claim.

I’ve already provided sources and links to the medical doctors testimony and documentation (see above). Here is a link to the Chicago Tribune story dated Monday September 26, 1983.

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

Those who cling to the faith claim that there are no miracles, just claimed there was no need to address the facts of the case, nor of any of the documented cases, with one individual accusing the Yale Cardiologist who testified that a guy came back to life, who had already been declared dead with a death certificate to prove it, must have been a Christian whacko. Did they provide evidence that the guy is a whacko? No they did not. Apparently to atheists, just fabricating a conspiracy theory out of thin air is sufficient evidence, whereas 250 pages of medical records and testimony from a Yale cardiologist is not evidence at all.

You can't tell me objectively and honestly that those rebuttals are evidence based and negate the medical evidence that I put forward. They are unsubstantiated slanders, special pleading, and goal post moving.

I do think it will be helpful to define terms. What constitutes a healing, versus a miracle, the evidence needed for proof, and the standards of medical studies. However, lets cut the Dee and be honest for a moment, none of that matters to the atheists who have been willing to engage in character assignation to cling to their faith claim that God doesn’t answer prayer. They will just move the goal posts again, or claim they know more than the Harvard/Stanford/Yale scientists and doctors I’ve sited on the topic. If that fails, then they will make up yet another conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it. I’m well aware of what they are doing. I don’t think any amount of evidence would convince them. I do think that an honest person reading these posts would recognize that there is indeed evidence that prayer works.

I have to stop for now. I’ll come back and address the rest of your post later.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ; health benefit

And tell every one here what that means and tell every one here where it said in the article that those people prayed for health benefits and show the evidence where God deposited the health benefits in there bank accounts. Your totally nuts for trying to get people believibg that crap says any thing other than that it does which is totally nothing. You have failed miserably to quote any thing at all in those editorials that in any way proves that praying works. Oh an which edition of the Lancet were those advertising editorial craps posted in. You have been caught quoting total misleading and worthless information so I suggest you stop jumping up and down and actually listen to what every one is telling you. You are quoting absolutely nothing to support absolutely nothing.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I cannot speak for others. I personally have not claimed that she "faked it"; my claim was much weaker - that the presented evidence in support of her alleged miracle recovery was insufficient and suspiciously resembling similar (and well-known to be such) scams.

I do not know anything about Snyder's story, so will refrain from commenting on it. I also am not going to comment on every single rebuttal of your claims: clearly some of those rebuttals themselves are fallacious. I, once again, can only speak for myself and my words. The fact that I happen to agree with @Dee on a very narrow conclusion does not at all imply that the reasoning we used to arrive at it is the same, and lumping me and him together is unfair. I will be the first to admit that many atheists have extremely dishonest and inconsistent positions, and god knows (pun intended) that my own position must be full of holes.

What I am really interested in is your epistemological position and its consistency. It seems to me that the same reasoning that you have used to arrive at the realness of the alleged miracles, prayer as means of communicating with god, and god's existence itself, can be used to arrive at many other claims that you would disagree with. I would like to understand what truly separates the former from the latter, if it is not the reasoning itself.

Personally, I believe myself to have a fairly consistent epistemology. I do not expect some exorbitant amount of evidence in order to seriously consider possibility that during prayer people communicate with some intelligent being: the amount of evidence and its quality has to be the same as it is when it comes to any other question. That is the problem though: it is just not there. I know, when talking on my phone, that I am talking with someone: I can hear their voice. I am not aware of any data that anyone has collected showing that any information comes in from the outside when someone is praying. If I understand your epistemology correctly, you posit that in this case, since we are dealing with a supernatural entity, scientific evidence is not required - which begs the question of whether this applies to all supernatural entities in principle, including all kinds of mythological creatures from various cultures and fictional worlds. Would it be reasonable to say that Gollum's existence does not require scientific proof because Gollum is not natural? To me this position seems completely indefensible, yet is it not the exact position you are assuming, merely replacing word "Gollum" with word "god"?

Dee

@just_sayin

However, lets cut the Dee and be honest for a moment, none of that matters to the atheists who have been willing to engage in character assignation to cling to their faith claim that God doesn’t answer prayer.

It is not "character assainartion " to call a fraudster exactly what she is. None of my claims are " faith based" you keep accusing others of how you reach conclusions as all your conclusions are faith based.

They will just move the goal posts again, or claim they know more than the Harvard/Stanford/Yale scientists and doctors I’ve sited on the topic

You've cited devout christians who have written papers for Christian journals with not one shred of evidence for their claims. When asked you cannot produce even 1 peer reviewed paper by a credible scientist that backs your faith based claims up.

. If that fails, then they will make up yet another conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it.

Like what? You mean like asking for eve one statement from Knoxx claiming she has spinal injuries?

I’m well aware of what they are doing. I don’t think any amount of evidence would convince them

You cannot produce any.

. I do think that an honest person reading these posts would recognize that there is indeed evidence that prayer works.

There you go again claiming anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest.

Here is what you refuse to address......

1: Not one person can produce evidence of Knoxxs medical records , whys that?

2: Knoxx has never once talked about her spinal injuries , whys that?

3: You say a You Tube video and witness testimony are enough right? If that's the case do you accept the videos of Sai Baba indian god man doing miracles on You Tube are just as valid ? If not why not as millions of people have seen him doing such.

4: You and fellow Christians actually believe you have a relationship with a supernatural entity that cannot be seen , heard or touched yet exists that makes you whackos , you all gather in a building on Sundays and close your eyes raise your hands skywards and mutter incantations at an empty ceiling , that proves you're whackos.

Finally @MayCaeser methodology bears no relation to my direct method of communication ad you're only response is to repeat faith based claims that have not one shred of evidence for them.

Tell me this is its been proven prayer works then it follows that must prove God exists so where are these Nobel prizes for the people you claim proved prayer works and god exists?

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;

I cannot speak for others.
I personally have not claimed.
I do not know anything about
I also am not going to comment
my own position must be full of holes
I do not expect some exorbitant amount of evidence
I am not aware of any data that anyone has collected

Wow have you listened to your self in the mirror lately. Just saying

You must have a real saw bottom from sitting on the fence for so long yet then you say

Personally, I believe myself to have a fairly consistent epistemology.

But any way just to clearify about that woman con artist. And this is my opinion based on reason and the lack of facts. But the fact is that she just so happens to be a high member of the same church as the charlatan pasta. And its a fact that she refused to prove any evidence about her medical condition in the first place. And the fact is that she is a charismatic big mouth charmer and her husband deliberately plays the straight guy. And its a fact that even blind Freddie can see that the video was totally staged and that all the people in it were paid to act like sick people then miraculously. It is so phony and artificial its not even funny. And its a fact any way that Hinn was done big time and every one of those con artists including that guy suddenly stopped doing that dishonest crap.

Every one here is trying to tell @just_sayin about all the total worthless plastic advertising crap he poste dressed as surveys and evidence. And Im ytelling him that if he keeps on consuming all that lying deceiving baloney its like you are what you eat and ultimately he is or is becoming a lying deceiving piece of baloney because thats all he wants to eat.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar, @Dee, @Barndot

Now, I will answer this question for myself. To me, the chief difference between the two groups is existence of reproducible evidence. How do I know that bears exist, but werebears do not? I can go out in the wilds and observe a bear firsthand, or watch clear photo/video evidence of bears, or go to a museum and look at a bear's bones, or open a research book on mammals and read about endless findings on bears and their biology. I cannot do the same for werebears, all the claims about existence of which can only be taken on faith and cannot be verified in any way.

The general definition of a miracle is an event not explainable solely by natural processes but which require the direct causal agency of a supernatural being, usually God. By definition a miracle is not reproducible. MayCaesar, you have committed the same error in logic that Hume did. Hume claimed that only natural things can happen in the natural world, and if miracles happen in the natural world then there must be a natural explanation. He in essence defined miracles in such a way that no miracle, even a real one, could be called a miracle. I think you are guilty of the same fallacy as Hume.

But instead, I'm going to point out to you that it is you, like Dee and Barndot, who are holding on to a faith claim that there are no miracles. And by your own logic, you should be able to prove me wrong. You claimed that what you believe has 'reproducible evidence'. I think that's untrue. Let me remind you that I'm the one who has provided over a dozen examples of polls where people said they saw a miracle or had a prayer answered, scientific journals and books documenting cases where people were miraculously healed of blindness, lame walking, gastric issues, paralysis, MS, and even death. I've provided examples of double blind prayer studies that found that prayer works. Even though I'm the so-called 'faith guy', it is you three that have operated in faith, and failed to show these events are all scientifically reproducible. Now don't go and give me a 'science of the gaps' excuse of 'well just because science can't explain it, doesn't mean that the all-knowing and all-powerful science can't reproduce it' excuse. The fact is, in the examples I've provided, all scientific inquiry has not found a way to reproduce the miracles I've mentioned. If you think otherwise, then its your turn to produce the evidence.

Please show me, the medical/scientific evidence that can reproduce the eyesight of someone who is blind and had the same medical diagnosis as the case of blindness I showed you in the medical journal.

Please show me, the scientifically reproducible method that will instantly heal someone of MS, make them walk again - without any atrophy, heal their lungs, intestines, and give them their eyesight back. Come on if you really only believe in 'reproducible evidence', then make with the reproducing of those results. There are millions of people suffering with MS. If Barbara Cummisky's miracle is just 'reproducible evidence' then you need to reproduce it. And if you can't, then it seems like your claim you only believe in 'reproducible evidence' is a lie and what you really believe in is just 'make believe'.

Please bring back someone who was dead for 85 minutes and has a written death certificate proving they were dead. Come on, I'm waiting. Surely since you only believe in 'reproducible evidence', you must have reproducible evidence that science can bring back the dead every time under the same conditions. So let's start raising those dead bodies boys!

Dee, you claimed you could dismiss the claims of miracles if the doctor was a Christian. That makes no sense. How do you explain the scientific evidence of the person's condition and of their healed state after prayer? In the case of Barbara Cummisky there were numerous doctor's who saw her at the Mayo Clinic and at Du Paul's hospital. 3 different doctor's have testified and written reports about her miracle, providing detailed medical evidence. Are they all part of your conspiracy theory?

Dee, you called Delia Knox a scammer, but there is no evidence to support this claim. Its another conspiracy theory that let's you hold on to you debunked faith claim that there are no miracles. If you think I'm wrong, then reproduce Delia Knox's healing of paralysis over and over again.

If a miracle is just reproducible science, then prove it and reproduce the miracles I've mentioned.

Dee

@just_sayin

You avoid the meat of Humes argument which destroys your contentions easily......

Explain Hume’s Argument Against Miracles

Firstly, we must begin with what Hume defines miracles as. Hume states that a miracle is “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent”. By this, Hume means to suggest that a miracle is a breaking of a law of nature by the choice and action of a God or supernatural power.

Hume sets up this definition in order to counter with five main arguments.

1) “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”. Here, Hume means to suggest that a wise man considers which side is supported by the most evidence. Everitt calls this the proportionality principle. For example, if we take the miracle of Jesus walking on water from the bible, Hume would suggest that there is more evidence to support the fact people cannot walk on water rather than the one time that Jesus did, and so we should not believe it.

2) Hume also says that we must choose the lesser miracle. Hume here points to Ockham’s Razor as support for this, which basically states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. In order for a miracle to be true, denial of the miracle would have to be more miraculous than its acceptance. If we took the example of Jesus being resurrected, Hume would suggest that we consider what is more likely: that those making the claim are mistaken, or that Jesus actually came back to life? Here Hume would argue we must logically choose the first option.

3) Hume also suggests that with all claims of miracles made, there is inadequate witness testimony. Witnesses must, according to Hume, be well educated and intelligent. They should have a reputation to lose and nothing to gain from their claim. There must be a “sufficient number” of witnesses in order for a claim to be considered. Hume also states that humans love the fantastic and want to believe in miracles, and believers desire to promote their religion. As a result, Hume argues that many, if not all, claims of miracles in current sources are inadequate and should be dismissed.

4) Following this, Hume also claims that miracles often come from “ignorant and barbarous nations”, making accounts of miracles unreliable. For example, many of the claims of miracles within the bible are made by poor, uneducated fishermen and peasants, which Hume argues is not an adequate source.

5) Finally, Hume argues that miracles in other religions cancel each other out. Miracles from Hinduism or Buddhism, he argues, cancels out those from Christianity of Islam. As such, Hume suggests that instead of picking just one to believe in, we should deny them all.

It's not a " faith claim" to say there are no miracles , it's a statement of fact. The proof is very simple and you refuse to address it .......if its a fact that prayer has been proven to bring about miracles h9w come no one has received a Nobel prize for this remarkable discovery?

You refuse to reply , whys that? Also if prayer has been conclusively proven to work that surely proves god exists so how come no-one person has recieved a Nobel prize for proving that god exists? Bet you refuse to reply.

Dee, you claimed you could dismiss the claims of miracles if the doctor was a Christian

Yes

. That makes no sense

OK so if that's the case do you accept miracles claims by Hindus , Buddhists, Mormons ,Satanists, Indian gurus , faith healers , hypnotists etc, etc if not why not?

. How do you explain the scientific evidence of the person's condition and of their healed state after prayer?

I've yet to see a peer reviewed paper by a credible scientist to support your claims.

In the case of Barbara Cummisky there were numerous doctor's who saw her at the Mayo Clinic and at Du Paul's hospital. 3 different doctor's have testified and written reports about her miracle, providing detailed medical evidence. Are they all part of your conspiracy theory?

Are the millions of followers of Sai Baba correct when they say he also cured people of incurable diseases?

Dee, you called Delia Knox a scammer, but there is no evidence to support this claim

Well you cannot post up even one piece by the scammer saying she has a spinal injury despite my asking 15 times .

. Its another conspiracy theory that let's you hold on to you debunked faith claim that there are no miracles. If you think I'm wrong, then reproduce Delia Knox's healing of paralysis over and over again.

Matters of fact are not " faith claims" yet all your claims are so you attempt to accuse your opponents of your ignorant , superstious , gullible way of " reasoning"

There is no evidence of miracles only people like you constantly saying there is , the burden of proof is not on me but you to prove it not the reverse.

If a miracle is just reproducible science, then prove it and reproduce the miracles I've mentioned.

Where did I say a miracle is " reproducible science" ? I don't believe in miracles you do but cannot prove it just like you cannot prove the ghost you claim to worship.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Dee says Dee-dly Squat Yet Again

@Dee

I noticed that you didn't produce any studies that brought back people from the dead, nor any that caused the blind to see, nor made the lame walk, healed gastric issues or healed MS. So your post is just another example of nothing. You claimed that miracles aren't real. If that is true then what I called a miracle is just a natural event that you can reproduce repeatedly at will. Well? Where is your evidence that these are reproducible and repeatable events? It must be in the same place that your evidence that Delia Knox is a scammer is, or maybe you hid it in the same place as your evidence that the case report of Marylon Ford getting her eyesight back is a hoax. Now I provided you a case study of Marylon Ford going from blind to seeing that has appeared in Science Direct and Elsevier journals.

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

I have gladly provided you with a letter from her doctor stating what her vision was:

i provided you evidence that she was enrolled in the school for the blind:

I even provided you with a post miracle doctor's examination of her (a different doctor than the first one who confirmed her miracle):

I pointed you to the detailed specifics of her medical case, as seen in the medical journal, and pointed you to the detailed images of her retinas that are provided in the journal. And what did you provide me?

Dee-dly Squat

That's not evidence Dee. Marolyn Ford has provided a lot of access to her health records, but you have provided nothing. Here is a picture of her when she was blind:

Now before we go off on a rabbit trail talking about Hume, its time you held up your end of the evidence producing. Where are the journals that show how to make blind people see again that can be reproduced over and over again.

Dee

@just_sayin

ARGUMENT TOPIC : JUST SAYIN YET AGAIN REFUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING HIS UNFOUNDED CLAIMS.

JUST SAYIN THINKS PREACHING IS DEBATING. BELOW ARE THE REPLIES TO HIS CONTENTIONS THAT HE REFUSES TO ADDRESS.

You avoid the meat of Humes argument which destroys your contentions easily......

Explain Hume’s Argument Against Miracles

Firstly, we must begin with what Hume defines miracles as. Hume states that a miracle is “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the deity or by the interposition of some invisible agent”. By this, Hume means to suggest that a miracle is a breaking of a law of nature by the choice and action of a God or supernatural power.

Hume sets up this definition in order to counter with five main arguments.

1) “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”. Here, Hume means to suggest that a wise man considers which side is supported by the most evidence. Everitt calls this the proportionality principle. For example, if we take the miracle of Jesus walking on water from the bible, Hume would suggest that there is more evidence to support the fact people cannot walk on water rather than the one time that Jesus did, and so we should not believe it.

2) Hume also says that we must choose the lesser miracle. Hume here points to Ockham’s Razor as support for this, which basically states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. In order for a miracle to be true, denial of the miracle would have to be more miraculous than its acceptance. If we took the example of Jesus being resurrected, Hume would suggest that we consider what is more likely: that those making the claim are mistaken, or that Jesus actually came back to life? Here Hume would argue we must logically choose the first option.

3) Hume also suggests that with all claims of miracles made, there is inadequate witness testimony. Witnesses must, according to Hume, be well educated and intelligent. They should have a reputation to lose and nothing to gain from their claim. There must be a “sufficient number” of witnesses in order for a claim to be considered. Hume also states that humans love the fantastic and want to believe in miracles, and believers desire to promote their religion. As a result, Hume argues that many, if not all, claims of miracles in current sources are inadequate and should be dismissed.

4) Following this, Hume also claims that miracles often come from “ignorant and barbarous nations”, making accounts of miracles unreliable. For example, many of the claims of miracles within the bible are made by poor, uneducated fishermen and peasants, which Hume argues is not an adequate source.

5) Finally, Hume argues that miracles in other religions cancel each other out. Miracles from Hinduism or Buddhism, he argues, cancels out those from Christianity of Islam. As such, Hume suggests that instead of picking just one to believe in, we should deny them all.

It's not a " faith claim" to say there are no miracles , it's a statement of fact. The proof is very simple and you refuse to address it .......if its a fact that prayer has been proven to bring about miracles how come no one has received a Nobel prize for this remarkable discovery?

You refuse to reply , whys that? Also if prayer has been conclusively proven to work that surely proves god exists so how come no-one person has recieved a Nobel prize for proving that god exists? Bet you refuse to reply.

Dee, you claimed you could dismiss the claims of miracles if the doctor was a Christian

Yes

. That makes no sense

OK so if that's the case do you accept miracles claims by Hindus , Buddhists, Mormons ,Satanists, Indian gurus , faith healers , hypnotists etc, etc if not why not?

. How do you explain the scientific evidence of the person's condition and of their healed state after prayer?

I've yet to see a peer reviewed paper by a credible scientist to support your claims.

In the case of Barbara Cummisky there were numerous doctor's who saw her at the Mayo Clinic and at Du Paul's hospital. 3 different doctor's have testified and written reports about her miracle, providing detailed medical evidence. Are they all part of your conspiracy theory?

Are the millions of followers of Sai Baba correct when they say he also cured people of incurable diseases?

Dee, you called Delia Knox a scammer, but there is no evidence to support this claim

Well you cannot post up even one piece by the scammer saying she has a spinal injury despite my asking 15 times .

. Its another conspiracy theory that let's you hold on to you debunked faith claim that there are no miracles. If you think I'm wrong, then reproduce Delia Knox's healing of paralysis over and over again.

Matters of fact are not " faith claims" yet all your claims are so you attempt to accuse your opponents of your ignorant , superstious , gullible way of " reasoning"

There is no evidence of miracles only people like you constantly saying there is , the burden of proof is not on me but you to prove it not the reverse.

If a miracle is just reproducible science, then prove it and reproduce the miracles I've mentioned.

Where did I say a miracle is " reproducible science" ? I don't believe in miracles you do but cannot prove it just like you cannot prove the ghost you claim to worship.

Dee

@just_sayin

Just for amusement I had a look at your latest " evidence" which you deliberately blurred thinking I wouldn't get to the truth of your nonsensical claims.

You quote a letter from a multi Millionaire bible thumping preacher from a cult called Bethany ministeries as your " killer " evidence , this scam artist signs off by saying " the ultimate physician god cured her".......seriously buddy you're one gullible rube , ripe for the picking.

Evans preaches about the poor , suffering and hungry but never mentions how he makes millions from these unfortunates and people like you think him a Saint......,WOW

Actually I admire the way oily millionaire religious scammers take your hard earned , your gullibility is what they rely on.

If anyone on here wishes to ensure bishop David his wife and children continue with their lavish luxurious lifestyle please give generously to gods disciple, Bishop Evans kindly has a link to an app that has no limit donation options , do the right thing his wife needs a bomb job and no amount of praying has stopped her tits sagging

American bishops of religion cults are exempt from certain teachings of Jesus especially regards wealth , how perfectly convenient......

“A certain ruler asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.’ ‘ He replied, ‘I have kept all these since my youth.’ When Jesus heard this, he said to him, ‘There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me. But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:18-25).

Image: https://www.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/c1/1onhdd4upt9b.jpg

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Dee-dly squat provided by Dee again.

@Dee
Surely you aren't as uninformed as your comments suggest, right? I have never seen the website you say I used. I don't know a thing about them. I am happy to provide sources for you (just ask):

https://marolynford.com/index.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830720300926?via%3Dihub

http://searchingdeeper.com/SearchingForMiracles.html

Why did you invent yet another conspiracy theory rather than just provide me with the scientific evidence you claim is necessary? AGAIN, I ask you where are your scientific studies that show how to make the blind see, the lame walk, cure those with MS, and raise the dead. I'm still waiting and you have provided:

Dee-dly squat

Don't change the subject again. Where is your evidence that shows these miracles can be replicated and done so repeatedly. It seems that information is missing, like the information to back up your claim that Delia Knox, Marolyn Ford, and Barbara Cummisky Snyder are fakers.

Come on Dee, man up, where is your studies?

Dee