@JulesKorngold well of course that what we should do and do do. But some people are stuck in this idea that they may as well pray as well. All it does is raise false hopes in people. But then those people should be hold accountable for being so st upid for believing that crap any way. So in the end yes all that celestial stuff is holding up the progress of proper cures.

Argument Topic: The Strengths Of Double-Blind Studies

• Minimize bias: Blinding both participants and researchers minimizes conscious and unconscious biases that can influence outcomes.
• Increase objectivity: By removing knowledge of which group receives the intervention or is being observed, results are more likely to reflect the true effect of the studied factor.
• Enhance replicability: Studies with strong methodological designs, like double-blinding, are easier to replicate by other researchers, strengthening the validity of findings.

JulesKorngold said:

@Barnardot
I appreciate your agreement with my post about focusing our efforts.

Jules, first Merry Christmas.  I am happy you have rejoined this debate.  I appreciated your contributions.  

Forgive me, I'm going to briefly just mention some things I've said before, in the hopes that we can then move beyond restating points we've made before.

1)  As I mentioned before - the majority of the evidence says prayer work.  Again, here is the quote:

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.

Marilyn Schlitz, Ph.D., and lecturer at Harvard, says, “It's clear from the correlational studies within the epidemiology data that positive relationships exist between religious and spiritual practice and health outcomes on a variety of different conditions.” Moreover, she says that in a study and confirmation study on intercessory prayer, “the prayer groups had statistically significant improvements in outcome, suggesting that the intervention has clinical relevance.” - Fox News

In the recent National Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) survey study I mentioned, a significantly high percentage of the population makes use of prayer for other people. Many people believe that if I pray for you, you will become better, or if you pray for me I'll become better, and yet we know very little of the mechanism to explain how this might happen. So this is a frontier area for research. To date, more than 180 studies have been done in this area, with more than half of them producing significant results. In these experiments, one person through their intention tries to influence the physiology or the physical condition of a target system, such as cell cultures, animal models, and there are human studies. As of March 2004, there have been nine controlled clinical trials looking at intercessory prayer (compassionate intention at a distance). Six of these have produced statistically significant positive results. For a complete list of these studies, one can visit the distant healing research site at the Institute of Noetic Sciences Web site (www.noetic.org). - Marilyn Schlitz, Meditation, Prayer and Spiritual Healing: The Evidence

2) lots of studies have shown that prayer works, for example:

From 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12776468/'

A systematic review of the quality of research on hands-on and distance healing: clinical and laboratory studies

Results: A total of 45 laboratory and 45 clinical studies published between 1956 and 2001 met the inclusion criteria. Of the clinical studies, 31 (70.5%) reported positive outcomes as did 28 (62%) of the laboratory studies; 4 (9%) of the clinical studies reported negative outcomes as did 15 (33%) of the laboratory studies. The mean percent overall internal validity for clinical studies was 69% (65% for hands-on healing and 75% for distance healing) and for laboratory studies 82% (82% for hands-on healing and 81% for distance healing). 

90 studies from reputable journals have shown that prayer works. 

3) Medical training believes prayer works as it has been incorporated into training for doctors:

See Fox News: 

Researchers at the Heritage Foundation said, “We have a logical reason why religion might influence physical health through mental health, through enhancing social support, through influencing health behaviors, all affecting physical health outcomes.” So, at the very least, prayer is beneficial. It works. In fact, “Today, 101 medical schools incorporate patient spirituality in their curriculum, up from 17 in 1995. This fact suggests that these principles are being incorporated into medical education…”

4) More studies that show prayer works:

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  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.

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. 

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

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.

I referenced a few summary of prayer studies that showed that most prayer studies concluded that prayer works:

Such as:

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

which 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 systematic review of distance prayer 

" 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. "

Again, have a great Christmas.

JulesKorngold said:

The following sources were researched for this post:

General historical context and plague/pandemic examples:

• Rosen, E. (2007). The Black Death: 1346-1353. HarperCollins.
• McNeill, W. H. (2010). Plagues and peoples. Anchor Books.
• Porter, C. (2004). Pale rider: The Spanish flu of 1918. Pimlico.

Specific examples of prayer and faith in historical events:

• Brown, C. (2001). God and John Calvin: A short life and introduction to his theology. Oxford University Press.
• Carroll, J. T. (2005). Epidemics and religion: World views, responses, and outcomes. Cambridge University Press.

Throughout history, there have been numerous instances where prayer proved ineffective in combating major illnesses and pandemics. Here are some key examples:

Plagues and Pandemics:

• The Black Death (1347-1351): Widespread prayer and religious processions failed to curb the devastating Black Death pandemic, which wiped out roughly a third of Europe's population. Flagellant movements advocating self-punishment for atonement also proved ineffective.
• Great Plague of London (1665): During this outbreak, authorities called for days of public prayer and fasting, but the plague continued to spread. Notably, Isaac Newton, a devoutly religious man, left London for the countryside during this time, highlighting the disconnect between faith and practical measures.
• Spanish Flu (1918-1919): During this global pandemic, religious leaders worldwide held prayer services and processions, yet the flu claimed an estimated 50 million lives.

Other Examples:

• Failed faith healings: Throughout history, numerous instances of faith healers claiming to cure various illnesses through prayer have proven unsuccessful, raising ethical concerns about exploiting the hope and desperation of vulnerable individuals.
• Natural disasters: While prayer is often offered in the wake of natural disasters, numerous historical examples, from earthquakes to hurricanes, showcase its limitations in preventing or mitigating physical harm.

These examples highlight the crucial distinction between faith and its limitations in directly addressing physical health challenges.

These instances underscore the importance of relying on evidence-based medical practices and scientific methods to combat epidemics and other health crises. While faith and prayer can offer comfort and hope, relying solely on them during times of illness without seeking appropriate medical care can be disastrous.

I am so glad to see you back participating in this debate.  And I see you have brought your AI with you.  Is it serious between the 2 of you?  Do you think you will put a ring on it?  Just joking

Anyway, the issue of unanswered prayer has been brought up before in this debate, at least I think it was this debate.  There are many reasons why prayers may not be answered (I think I provided a list of between 7 - 10 reasons).  Again, God is not a vending machine, where you can just push the right button and get what you want.  The fact that some prayers don't get answered does not mean that no prayers get answered.  That's not a logical conclusion.  The essential question is do any prayers get answered?  Well, the evidence overwhelmingly says they do:

From Yahoo Finance:

National Day of Prayer Study: 85% of Americans Connect with a Higher Power; Increasing their Practice During and Since Covid Lockdowns

• 87% of those that pray say they have had a prayer answered.

Or how about this Vox (leftist) article:

48 percent of Americans pray every day. Here's what they pray for.


So the majority of people who pray, claim their prayers are answered at least some of the time.  If even 1 prayer is answered, the debate is over.  It seems unlikely that hundreds of millions of people are wrong and much more likely that God does answer prayer.  The many examples of miracles I have mentioned is strong evidence that God has indeed supernaturally answered the prayers of people.  

JulesKorngold said:

@just_sayin said:  If even 1 prayer is answered, the debate is over. 
What exactly is an "answered prayer"?  Was it simply coincidence, confirmation bias, or a natural event that would have happened regardless of prayer?  Moreover, your claim is ambiguous.

In addition, if God knows the future, wouldn't he know he would change his mind as a result of prayer?  Why go through a silly charade?
 

Sorry for giving you a hard time on the AI.  I actually appreciate you adding more content to the discussion.  

First, let me address the question about God and the future.  In previous discussions I have gone into the A and B theory of time scientific debate (I'm an A theory guy for us humans, but believe God sees everything more from a B theory perspective because he is outside of space-time).  But, rather than retrace that, I will just make a logical observation.  God's foreknowledge of time need not be causative.  God created space-time, he is not restricted to linear time.  He can see the future, but that does not mean that his foreknowledge is deterministic and that we have no free will.  

Now you asked how can you know if a prayer is just a coincidence and not confirmation bias.  I have spent a lot of time in this debate detailing miracles that defy medical explanation as examples of this.  Forgive me for recapping, but I have mentioned Barbara Commiskey's story of how she was sent home to die.  She had a disease that had taken her ability to control her limbs away and hadn't walked in many years.  It had also caused her lung to collapse and her intestines to stop working.  She was also blind.  Her doctor's expected her to die in a week or so and had sent her home.  A local radio station had heard of her plight and had asked listeners to pray for her and write cards to her.  On the day that 2 people delivered 400 or so cards, she heard God speak to her and got up.  She walked out of the room and then realized she was walking for the first time, and also that she could see.  She went to the doctor the next morning and they confirmed her healing of blindness, lameness, her lungs were restored, and her intestines were still working.  

No less than 3 of Barbara Cummiskey Snyder's doctors have written either books or case studies on her story.  If you would like to hear her story in her own words here you go (start at 43:45)

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

Here's her story in the Chicago Tribune, Sept 26, 1983

You can read about her testimony for yourself.  Here are just two books available on Amazon:

The Case for Miracles: A Journalist Investigates Evidence for the Supernatural

and 

Miracles Today

In Miracles Today, her story is told in the introduction, so you won't have to read far.

You can read her story in Christianity Today, Dec. 16, 1983:

One Who Took up Her Bed and Walked

You can watch her story on youtube:




If you would rather listen to a podcast, then you can listen here:

https://podtail.com/en/podcast/life-money-and-hope-with-chris-brown/episode-46-miracles-still-happen/

I've mentioned the book Miracles Today by Craig Keener.  Here he is at Biola University discussing Barbara Cummiskey's miracle:



You can read the account from his book in this PDF sample.  pages 6-10 (corresponding to the preface).

https://www.pcabookstore.com/samples/15426.pdf

An excerpt from those pages:

The next day Barbara visited her doctor’s office. Dr. Marshall recounts his feelings when, in the hallway of his medical office, he first saw Barbara walking toward him. “I thought I was seeing an apparition! Here was my patient, who was not expected to live another week, totally cured.” 

 Over the next three and a half hours, she saw virtually every doctor in the office. Dr. Marshall reports that none of his colleagues “had ever seen anything like this before.” X-rays showed that even her collapsed lung was no longer collapsed.6 He removed all the tubes that could be removed without surgery. Barbara reports his verdict that day: “I’ll be the first to tell you: You’re completely healed. I can also tell you that this is medically impossible.” Dr. Adolph remarks that “her breathing was normal. The diaphragms were functioning normally.”7 He soon reconnected her bowel, which was now functional; her only health problem involved some complications from this new operation. That week, WMBI broadcast her testimony. Eventually, the Chicago Tribune, some television stations, and many magazines and books carried her story. Dr. Marshall told Barbara, “You are now free to go out and live your life.” And Barbara has—now for roughly four decades with no recurrence of MS.8 Dr. Marshall deems it his “rare privilege to observe the Hand of God performing a true miracle.”9 Dr. Adolph notes that Barbara eventually studied surgical technology at the hospital “and even assisted me on several simpler operations. Both Barbara and I knew who had healed her.”10

You can see former investigative journalist and author of the Case for Miracles, Lee Strobel, interview Barbara Cummiskey at 40:40 of this video:



Her surgeon, Dr Harold P Adolph tells Barbara Cummiskey's story in his book: 

Today's Decisions Tomorrow's Destiny

Some statements from Dr. Harold P Adolph on Barbara Cummiskey

From Miracles Today:

A surgeon, Dr. Harold Adolph, describes her condition toward the end of her suffering: 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 she easily became breathless. Her abdomen was swollen grotesquely 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.3 

Here is Dr Harold Adolph's signed medical statement that Barbara Cummiskey, after being prayed for, had no signs of MS.

Her doctors called it a miracle.  There is no medical explanation for her instantaneous  recovery, where her legs were not even atrophied,  You would have to just bitterly cling to your faith that their are no miracles to deny the facts of her story.

I've also mentioned the Miracle of Calanda where the guy had his leg amputated but it grew back over night.  Now unless you can explain how a leg that was amputated 2 years earlier can magically reappear this is a miracle and, there is no scientific explanation. The story has a lot of documentation from the doctors who amputated the leg, from people who knew him without it, to doctors who verified it had regrown.

As noted from Wikipedia:

Following a request from the city's authority, a formal inquiry was initiated in order to ascertain the veracity of the event. Legal proceedings, presided by the archbishop of the city began on June 5 and took about a year. All hearings were public and no voice of dissent was recorded. Twenty-four witnesses spoke out, selected as the most trustworthy from among the great number of people that knew Pellicer, both from Calanda and from Zaragoza.[1]

On April 27, 1641, the archbishop of Zaragoza pronounced a judgment, thereby officially declaring the authenticity of the miracle. 

One would have to ignore a lot of evidence to cling to their belief that miracles don't happen.

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

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...

In contrary, I found this debate to be very unremarkable. Unlike the few good discussions I have had with people seriously arguing monotheism, this one followed the same old route: all of the important questions I raised were ignored, words were put in my mouth, and the main line of argumentation of the monotheist ended up being the usual repetition of the few points regardless of what anyone else is saying until everyone else becomes sick of it and quits - and then the monotheist proclaims himself as dominating the debate. Most monotheists simply choose to brush away all difficult questions and stick their head in cozy, comfortable, warm sand. That is what people have to do when they want to believe the unbelievable. There is no other way.

I believe I mentioned around here before the thought-provoking conversation I had with a Shinto follower in Japan. What a discussion! My points were acknowledged and directly addressed, and in a way that I had not seen before, in a way that made even me, absolutely unhinged anti-tradition extremist at the time, concede that my own position was full of holes.

I am sorry to say that this weeks-long debate has not had even 0.01% of the intellectual value of that conversation that lasted a few hours.

@MayCaesar, you are one of my favorite debaters on the site.  I suspect I have offended you for calling you out on your science of the gaps line of argumentation.  You have essentially claimed that miracles can never be shown - because even when science has said there is no scientific explanation, that science may still present an explanation we don't know yet .  I will point you back to your own words:

 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. 

I can understand, that if you don't think it is possible to prove a miracle, then this debate would bore you.  You have closed your mind - as the statement 'I do not think such a proof is possible' suggests; well, actually states.

Regarding the problem of making a science of the gaps argument - its pretty straightforward.  Science has already been consulted.  In Barbara Commiskey's case, some of the best doctors of the Mayo Clinic treated her and they knew her case intimately and knew there was no scientific explanation.  You felt it was wrong for a doctor to use the word 'miracle', but if something is medically impossible - what term should be used?  The reality of her healing can not be denied.  Rather than admit, that science doesn't know and will never be able to explain it, you cling to the belief, that even when science says it doesn't know, to trust you, science can solve the problem.  That's a logical fallacy.  There is no evidence of this.  The only evidence is science can't explain it.  You place far more faith in science, than science has shown, it merits.

Since you think we should always cling to the notion that science can and will find an answer, just what is the explanation for the Miracle of Calanda, where the guys leg grows back 2 years after amputation?  This topic may bore you, but I assure you, I am very interested in hearing your scientific explanation for this one.  I would love to hear you express the possible science explanations.

@MayCaesar
Something that in principle is unexplainable by science cannot exist, pretty much, by definition.

Now I am fallible and could be mistaken, but I'm just not seeing where I have misunderstood your argument.  Isn't the above sentence essentially saying 'even when science says it doesn't know, trust me, it knows'.  The statement assumes all that happens is by natural causes.  It precludes the supernatural, which is begging the question.  The supernatural is what is at question here.  How does space-time begin to exist?  Whatever creates it, must itself be outside of space-time - or if you prefer - outside nature.  Once again, I point out you are a) begging the question, by assuming the supernatural can't exist, and 2) engaging in a science of the gaps argument that claims when there are gaps in knowledge or information, we must go to a default of 'even when science has said it doesn't know, trust me, it really does know.'  

assuming they even took place, for which the cited evidence is very shaky

SMH.  For example, the Miracle of Calanda, the guy who's leg grew back overnight after being amputated - has numerous witness who testified under oath.  There are multiple testimonies from the doctor's who sawed the leg off.  2 other doctors testified to the leg being restored.  As well as 24 witnesses who under oath testified of the miracle of knowing the man before and after the event.  

I challenged you to provide natural explanations for the the Miracle of Calanda, where the guys leg grows back 2  1/2 years after amputation and for the case of Barbara Commiskey, who having been sent home to die, immediately is able to walk, see, have her lungs and intestines instantly healed.   You ran, like a chicken plucker who just heard someone yell 'Ice is coming!' (That one is for you @Barnardot).  Since science always knows, what's the scientific explanation to a leg growing back overnight?  Still waiting on an answer.

just_sayin said:

@MayCaesar
Something that in principle is unexplainable by science cannot exist, pretty much, by definition.

Now I am fallible and could be mistaken, but I'm just not seeing where I have misunderstood your argument.  Isn't the above sentence essentially saying 'even when science says it doesn't know, trust me, it knows'.  The statement assumes all that happens is by natural causes.  It precludes the supernatural, which is begging the question.  The supernatural is what is at question here.  How does space-time begin to exist?  Whatever creates it, must itself be outside of space-time - or if you prefer - outside nature.  Once again, I point out you are a) begging the question, by assuming the supernatural can't exist, and 2) engaging in a science of the gaps argument that claims when there are gaps in knowledge or information, we must go to a default of 'even when science has said it doesn't know, trust me, it really does know.'  

assuming they even took place, for which the cited evidence is very shaky

SMH.  For example, the Miracle of Calanda, the guy who's leg grew back overnight after being amputated - has numerous witness who testified under oath.  There are multiple testimonies from the doctor's who sawed the leg off.  2 other doctors testified to the leg being restored.  As well as 24 witnesses who under oath testified of the miracle of knowing the man before and after the event.  

I challenged you to provide natural explanations for the the Miracle of Calanda, where the guys leg grows back 2  1/2 years after amputation and for the case of Barbara Commiskey, who having been sent home to die, immediately is able to walk, see, have her lungs and intestines instantly healed.   You ran, like a chicken plucker who just heard someone yell 'Ice is coming!' (That one is for you @Barnardot).  Since science always knows, what's the scientific explanation to a leg growing back overnight?  Still waiting on an answer.

No, and such a sentence would be self-contradictory. For that matter, science cannot know or not know - rather, plausible scientific explanation can be available or not available at the moment. There is no intelligent being called "science" that knows or does not know something. My claim is that it might be impossible to say that science can never explain something, and even if it was possible to say so, it would imply that nothing else could explain that either. That science will eventually explain everything is obviously false and is not a part of my argument.
You keep posting this claim again and again, yet you are the only one making it. I have never said anything like this; it is an absurd statement.

By definition, the cause of every natural effect must itself be natural. Unnatural cause can only lead to unnatural effect, that is effect that is not a part of this Universe, hence, for all intents and purposes, that does not exist.
However, not every effect necessarily must have a cause. "Cause" and "effect" are human constructs, they are our attempt to build a framework within which models of various events can be built, predictions can be made, and decisions can be elucidated. It is not at all obvious that everything must have a cause that is a subject to human search. For example, what is the cause of the fact that 1+1=2? You will be hard-pressed to answer this question in a meaningful way - yet this fact is demonstrably true, and it is quite obvious that it is not a creation of the Spider Goddess, but something quite fundamental to any conceivable reality.

Even a very superficial search suggests that the consensus among historians that the "Miracle of Calanda" actually took place is absent. And I did not "ran", I addressed your question. As I said, I have no explanation and have no clue if science will ever come up with one. What I do know is that the religious explanation is as terrible as any random fantasy explanation I can come up with. The tooth fairy was horny and had sex with the Spider Goddess, and the child they conceived was the Calanda guy's leg.

Please stop lying about my words and try reading what I actually say. You say that I am one of your favorite debaters, but you sure put little effort into understanding what my contribution to debates actually is.

@just_sayin

Yes, once again, it is wrong. I have not suggested that there is always an explanation, it just has not yet been discovered. There could be things that will never be discovered, or even things that are principally undiscoverable - for instance, everything beyond the event horizon exists in virtually any sense the word "exist" is used in, yet it is undiscoverable even in principle.
However, if something cannot be discovered by science, then it cannot be discovered period. Science is simply rigorous epistemological application of logic, and anything that is not a subject to be learned in this way is not a subject to be learned in any way - for it constitutes a logical contradiction.

"Supernatural" does not exist in nature by definition, so it does not exist anywhere other than in someone's mind. Similarly, a supernatural cause cannot exist, and nothing that cannot exist can cause something that does exist. Something can exist and not have a cause, but nothing that exists can have a cause that does not exist.
"Cause", once again, is a human term, it is not something that intrinsically is a part of the Universe. Existence of the Universe itself cannot have a cause, for there is no Universe for this cause to be embedded in. When we talk about the Universe's "beginning", we do not imply that there is a point in time t=0 at which the Universe emerged, and at an earlier point t=-1 it did not exist. What we imply is that t=0 is the earliest time point which it makes sense to talk about, for "before" it there was no time, and we get a contradiction in terms.
Something a student of physics learns very early is that many things in physics defy easy everyday analogies. Ever studied quantum mechanics? Feynman once said that in quantum mechanics you should " and calculate", meaning that the more you try to understand it intuitively, the more derailed you will get. In your everyday life you are not used to such things as there not being a cause of something, or time being relative, or things not really being solid particles, but rather waves - but in physics you have to deal with those.

There is no possibility of the supernatural, indeed, and there is no possibility for there to provably be something that is not a subject to being studied by science. That does not imply that there is no possibility for a significant expansion of the current models. For example, the simulation hypothesis one day may be proven to be true, and we may be able to find a way to interact with the world from which ours is being simulated - that is somewhat similar to the world in which there is afterlife, or gods. But if it cannot be proven to be true, then it is just a fantasy. It is impossible there to be a phenomena that cannot be studied scientifically, but that provably exists, for science precisely is the study of phenomena that exist. If there is some kind of creature that can affect things in our world in a way that defies modern physics, then the behavior of that creature can be studied, and its existence can be discovered. Random "witness testimonies" is not a discovery, however.

Asking the same question over and over again and ignoring my answers is not going to change them. I have no explanation for the "Miracle of Calanda", assuming that it actually took place. That is something you naturally learn as a human: you cannot always understand and explain everything. Heck, I do not think that I understand and can explain even 0.0000000000001% of things that happen every second on our planet alone. Welcome to the world of limited intelligent beings!
Masking ignorance with fantasies, however, is not going to cut it. I am very comfortable with acknowledging that I do not know certain things - in fact, if I knew everything, life would be incredibly boring, so I am very happy every time I come across something new, something challenging my preconceptions. That does not at all cause me to invoke the Spider Goddess and say, "See, I understand everything!" That would be a very childish thing to do, and I would hope that most children grow out of it around the same time they are done playing in a sandbox.

On that note, people only do this with inconsequential things. Whether there is a magic creature that casts spells and randomly heals random people is pretty inconsequential to our everyday lives, so people get away with having a gazillion of religious and other superstitious explanations. But try to mask your ignorance with fantasies when it comes to something impactful... "I do not know if gasoline is safe to drink, but I read in one book that it should make me into a transformer, so here I go!" - natural selection will put a stop to this one very quickly.

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

Yes, once again, it is wrong. I have not suggested that there is always an explanation, it just has not yet been discovered. There could be things that will never be discovered, or even things that are principally undiscoverable - for instance, everything beyond the event horizon exists in virtually any sense the word "exist" is used in, yet it is undiscoverable even in principle.
However, if something cannot be discovered by science, then it cannot be discovered period. Science is simply rigorous epistemological application of logic, and anything that is not a subject to be learned in this way is not a subject to be learned in any way - for it constitutes a logical contradiction.

"Supernatural" does not exist in nature by definition, so it does not exist anywhere other than in someone's mind. Similarly, a supernatural cause cannot exist, and nothing that cannot exist can cause something that does exist. Something can exist and not have a cause, but nothing that exists can have a cause that does not exist.
"Cause", once again, is a human term, it is not something that intrinsically is a part of the Universe. Existence of the Universe itself cannot have a cause, for there is no Universe for this cause to be embedded in. When we talk about the Universe's "beginning", we do not imply that there is a point in time t=0 at which the Universe emerged, and at an earlier point t=-1 it did not exist. What we imply is that t=0 is the earliest time point which it makes sense to talk about, for "before" it there was no time, and we get a contradiction in terms.
Something a student of physics learns very early is that many things in physics defy easy everyday analogies. Ever studied quantum mechanics? Feynman once said that in quantum mechanics you should " and calculate", meaning that the more you try to understand it intuitively, the more derailed you will get. In your everyday life you are not used to such things as there not being a cause of something, or time being relative, or things not really being solid particles, but rather waves - but in physics you have to deal with those.

There is no possibility of the supernatural, indeed, and there is no possibility for there to provably be something that is not a subject to being studied by science. That does not imply that there is no possibility for a significant expansion of the current models. For example, the simulation hypothesis one day may be proven to be true, and we may be able to find a way to interact with the world from which ours is being simulated - that is somewhat similar to the world in which there is afterlife, or gods. But if it cannot be proven to be true, then it is just a fantasy. It is impossible there to be a phenomena that cannot be studied scientifically, but that provably exists, for science precisely is the study of phenomena that exist. If there is some kind of creature that can affect things in our world in a way that defies modern physics, then the behavior of that creature can be studied, and its existence can be discovered. Random "witness testimonies" is not a discovery, however.

Asking the same question over and over again and ignoring my answers is not going to change them. I have no explanation for the "Miracle of Calanda", assuming that it actually took place. That is something you naturally learn as a human: you cannot always understand and explain everything. Heck, I do not think that I understand and can explain even 0.0000000000001% of things that happen every second on our planet alone. Welcome to the world of limited intelligent beings!
Masking ignorance with fantasies, however, is not going to cut it. I am very comfortable with acknowledging that I do not know certain things - in fact, if I knew everything, life would be incredibly boring, so I am very happy every time I come across something new, something challenging my preconceptions. That does not at all cause me to invoke the Spider Goddess and say, "See, I understand everything!" That would be a very childish thing to do, and I would hope that most children grow out of it around the same time they are done playing in a sandbox.

On that note, people only do this with inconsequential things. Whether there is a magic creature that casts spells and randomly heals random people is pretty inconsequential to our everyday lives, so people get away with having a gazillion of religious and other superstitious explanations. But try to mask your ignorance with fantasies when it comes to something impactful... "I do not know if gasoline is safe to drink, but I read in one book that it should make me into a transformer, so here I go!" - natural selection will put a stop to this one very quickly.

The more you explain your position, the more I feel that I have not misunderstood you.  It seems as if you believe that no matter what improbable or impossible situation arises, like a guy's leg which had been amputated and catharized years earlier grows back overnight, the only solutions can be found in science.  I am pretty sure you believe only science/nature exists and therefore, only science/nature answers are permitted and that no matter how impossible something is, there must be some scientific explanation for it.

I got to say I admire the level of faith you have.  Honestly, I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  To me it is illogical to think science can explain something, when after science has been consulted and has been unable to find a logical reason for a situation, to cling to the belief 'that even when science says it doesn't know, give it time, science knows'.  For example in the example of the miracle of Calanda, if trickery has been eliminated, which it was, and science says 'chopped off human legs can't grow back overnight', then when a chopped off leg grows back overnight, it seems we should accept science's answer and look for another cause.  Your blind faith in science seems to go against the very thing you believe in, science.  Science has limits and constraints.  To think of it as all-powerful seems more of a faith claim to me.  

Maybe you could pray to science and ask it how to grow back a severed human leg overnight.  If it is science, then it should be repeatable, right?  it should not be impossible to replicate.  Yet, the verified miracle happened.  Maybe you should put your faith in something beyond nature, since it seems unable to perform miracles.  just sayin

@MayCaesar
If all data point to a supernatural creator as the answer, your faith will not allow you to recognize the truth because it is not a naturalistic one.  You do indeed have faith in your god, 'science'.  You are deceiving only yourself on this issue.  There is no naturalistic explanation of a guy's amputated leg growing back over night.  If you are intellectually honest, you could admit this.  Your faith in science as being the solution is great, but not logical.  I can admire how you will ignore facts to cling to your faith in science, however, no matter how much I can appreciate the faith in science you have, it is illogical to ignore the facts.  

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin @MayCaesar ;You do indeed have faith in your god, 'science'.

That is extreme and off this planet it’s not even funny. For your f ing info science has totally nothing to do with faith at all and trying your usual dishonest trick of turning the tables only  cements your already proven record of being as dishonest as you possibly can to push totally wackey dishonest views.

You can have faith in anything.  @MayCaesar has put his faith in science.  Even when facts point to a supernatural cause, as in the case of the guy whose leg was amputated and cauterized growing back over night, his faith in science will not allow him to consider a non-naturalistic explanation.  Now science suggests its impossible for an amputated and cauterized leg to grow back overnight, but to the faithful, science is all knowing and all powerful.  If you think I'm wrong, then tell me the natural explanation of how an amputated human leg grows back overnight.  I'm still waiting. Maybe those who put their faith in science could pray to it, and ask it for the answer.

you  are correct in one aspect of saying there are many things in this world that we have no explanation for. I have had a number of such happen to me in my life; and if i would not call it supernatural, i found them bizarre at least. One of the easier ones to relate is many years ago, i had been playing on my keyboard for quite some time; and after awhile, way back inside my brain somewhere was a slight buzzing. At first i paid it no heed, but it seem to slowly get closer and louder until i recognized it as my cell phone ringing. Back then I had a very distinctive ring on my phone and while I was playing the keyboard, the ringing in my mind got closer and or louder and more insistent; insistent to the point, i just had to get up and go to the table where my phone was and stared at it for a second. Then it rang, and of course the ring in my head ceased. Now just how far can one stretch a coincidence? Now do I have an explanation for it? Not if i want to call it some odd form of perception, because the ring in my head came unbidden; other than that. one would have to go very far to call it a coincidence.  So like you said, many things in our world can defy logical explanations. @MayCaesar

@just_sayin

Natural evidence cannot point to supernatural cause, just like a plan in chess cannot rely on the rules of checkers. If there is no natural explanation to something, then there is no explanation to it - there can be a fantasy pseudo-explanation that will satisfy a less critical and inquisitive mind, but there cannot be a real explanation that does not defy basic logic.

I have not "claimed the miracle of Calanda has a naturalistic explanation". I am done responding to things you put in my mouth. Criticize my actual statements, or talk to someone else. Like I said before, the intellectual value of this conversation has been so far exactly zero, for I have been talking to someone who has not been talking to me.

Argument Topic: limbs

No, prayer does not work. If there are any documented cases of praying alone caused the regeneration of fully functioning limbs that have been amputated, then I might be persuaded.   

 Yes, I did say "any" didn't I?@just_sayin I give you that. I also said, "might". Now if you have verifiable documentation that can be examined i.e. recorded as it grew along the way, then I would be closer to being persuaded. One case from the 1600 Catholic church is not credible in this day and age. 

Power is prayer. Prayer is the alternative figure in place for those who do not believe in themselves. Function best depending off of others prayer is equal to self affirmations of the mind in order to start the receiving part of the process. What you wish you had but cannot you ask god for it. "Dear god, please dont make me go to jail." Is equal to "i am going to find a way not to go to jail.". Praying is only a religious spiritual way of self affirmations that in my opinion actually work. Prayers are real and they work just as good as if you were saying it to yourself or to a god.


Researchers from a University in the east coast United States set up precise electro magnetic fiel equipment to study the magnetic field over the church during mass. Before mass the readings were per usual. During the mass a giant blue field hovered over the church during mass. The link below is a similar example of this study

https://www.panther-power.com/2014/11/04/the-science-of-prayers/



Those who dont believe in prayer are way behind on the concept of power. So to answer your question, YES prayers do actually work.

@TenohtlictlRodriguezLozano ;So to answer your question, YES prayers do actually work.

They do not and the article you posted is 100% total made up trash from an extreme site. If you think that you have even the slightest chance of debating then quoting fake evidence won’t get you any where.

@Barnardot

Sounds like that Barndoor guy is totally obsessed with the wonderful debater called Dee. The guy is no longer on here and yet its all you , Maxx, Bogend and just lyin can talk about..

Factfinder said:

 Yes, I did say "any" didn't I?@just_sayin I give you that. I also said, "might". Now if you have verifiable documentation that can be examined i.e. recorded as it grew along the way, then I would be closer to being persuaded. One case from the 1600 Catholic church is not credible in this day and age. 

First, welcome to the site.  

The miracle of the guy's leg growing back happened overnight.  Well, he went to bed with no leg, and his mother woke him up with one.  The Catholics are very cautious on calling something a miracle.  They investigate the claims and put skeptics on the team to ensure that each miracle can stand up to interrogation.  In the case I mentioned, they literally held a court hearing about it that went on for close to a year.  There are almost 1,000 pages of documentation on it..  At least 24 witnesses testified to the event.  This included the doctors that sawed off the guy's leg and cauterized it.  The documentation is pretty substantial and even contains medical records detailing the guy's leg becoming stronger after it grew back.  Its pretty hard to say that this was a faked incident, or that it didn't happen.

It seems irrelevant that it happened four hundred years ago.  If we can believe other events happened in the past, then time isn't an issue.  Science hasn't changed so much that we can't identify a leg where there was none there before.  So, the need for it to be today, seems like special pleading to me.

I've provided several modern day miracles in this thread.  Some of people who were blind, lame, and even some who were dead who came back to life.  I've provided peer reviewed medical documentation, actual video of a paralyzed woman's first steps, testimony from doctor's at the Mayo clinic, news accounts, tv interviews, and medical records - the guy who died and came back to life was a doctor and provided documentation and scans of everything..  No amount of evidence will convince those whose faith is in scientism.  Even when science says it can't explain the miracle, its followers will insist that science still has the answers - just scan through some of the posts to see for yourself.  

@Factfinder


I think prayer acts like any other self help positive thinking technique. Like when people are afraid to ask for a raise. They can't do it because the boss might not think they deserve one and they won't know what to say in the face of such rejection. Then a coworker tells them they deserve a raise. That causes an internal reaction that results in the self evaluation of their contributions, giving them the confidence to ask for that raise. 


So why are you using the term "prayer" if that's the case? As the term " prayer" has  a specific definition as in ........

That is because the original question was about prayer. Sorry@Joeseph What I was telling you was my opinion on why so many people believe in praying. I should have made that clear 

Joeseph said:

@Factfinder


I think prayer acts like any other self help positive thinking technique. Like when people are afraid to ask for a raise. They can't do it because the boss might not think they deserve one and they won't know what to say in the face of such rejection. Then a coworker tells them they deserve a raise. That causes an internal reaction that results in the self evaluation of their contributions, giving them the confidence to ask for that raise. 


So why are you using the term "prayer" if that's the case? As the term " prayer" has  a specific definition as in ........

Prayer......

1. a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity.

   "I'll say a prayer for him"

"Deity" can take many forms. Some people may pray to something more abstract such as the world, or nature - you find a lot of it in Buddhism and Shinto. There are also prayers that are done by people who are not religious, but superstitious in other ways - knocking on wood can be seen as a form of prayer, to Lady Fortune for the lack of a better object.

Many self-help techniques do not involve a request made to anyone or anything. For example, positive affirmations are explicitly tasked to get one's mind to a more positive state, and few practitioners making them expect any magic to come out of it - they understand that it is a purely psychological technique. That is what distinguishes them from prayer.

To my best knowledge, there has never been found a statistical difference in outcomes between prayer and other self-help techniques. People who pray to god to cure their cancer, versus people who employ CBT to prime their organism to combat cancer more efficiently, have not been demonstrated to obtain superior outcomes. As such, I agree with @Factfinder here: as per evidence we have, there is no reason to assume that prayer acts differently than other positive thinking techniques. No effect of prayer has ever been demonstrated beyond standard mobilization of organism attributed to positive expectations. No one in a controlled experiment has ever managed to obtain by praying something that is not obtainable by standard psychological techniques.

@Openminded ;Praying helps the person who is praying by giving them a sense of solace, peace and control.

Religion over all claims the same thing. I worked in an old folks home and I noticed that the religious folk there were mortally scarred and thought about nothing much else of what will happen to them  when they fall off the perch. If they didn't have such stup id dum ideas about praying and after life I reckon they would have enjoyed there last days a lot more. They would have true solace peace and control because they have no doubts or fears about whats going to happen to them.

@Joeseph ;"I'll say a prayer for him"

Just like every one on this site is praying for you to get the heck off of.