Does Praying Work?

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; No need to crawl...just believe what He has said.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Why are you posting up that crock of horse sh-t?

MayCaesar

What specific criteria do you use to separate noise from effect? Suppose I prayed for a good weather tomorrow and the weather was good. Then my neighbor prayed for a good weather the day after and the weather was bad. Is your conclusion that my prayer worked and his did not? Could it be that I just got lucky and the prayer had nothing to do with it?

I am genuinely trying to understand what constitutes an example of an answered prayer. So far everything you said seemed to be a hearsay, people claiming that their prayers were answered - but this just pushes the problem back, because they, in turn, have not explained on what basis they connect the prayer with the effect.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; Because you're dying in your sin via atheistic nonsense when life is just a faith-belief away.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/vp/h1blw1t4lsue.jpg

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

What specific criteria do you use to separate noise from effect? Suppose I prayed for a good weather tomorrow and the weather was good. Then my neighbor prayed for a good weather the day after and the weather was bad. Is your conclusion that my prayer worked and his did not? Could it be that I just got lucky and the prayer had nothing to do with it?

I am genuinely trying to understand what constitutes an example of an answered prayer. So far everything you said seemed to be a hearsay, people claiming that their prayers were answered - but this just pushes the problem back, because they, in turn, have not explained on what basis they connect the prayer with the effect.

May, We are now 10 pages deep into this debate so I get that topics covered on page 1 and 2 of the debate could be easily forgotten or overlooked. Specifically, I am referencing the information I posted to Jules and Dreamer regarding studies on the efficacy of prayer. What makes a good efficacy of prayer study has been extensively discussed. For example, the study,

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

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

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).

Just to make Jules happy, let me quote some more from the study of studies on the quality and results of the studies:

Assessment of Methodological Quality

The evaluation of study quality in systematic reviews has

been extensively developed in clinical medicine, but is rarely

used in laboratory research. We were primarily interested in

determining to what extent belief and other biases were con-

trolled for in studies on healing. We therefore used a scale that

focused on internal validity called the Likelihood of Validity

Evaluation (LOVE) scale.

4

The LOVE scale was designed specifi-

cally to analyze complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)

research. Its scoring sheet for evaluating the quality of clinical

studies consists of 26 items (Checklist 1). Because of the differ-

ences between clinical and laboratory settings, the criteria

scored for the laboratory studies consisted of a modified LOVE

scale 5 of 22 items (Checklist 2).
Scores for each study were established by evaluating how

likely it was that the effects were due to the treatment. Quality

criteria included the presence of controls, randomization, com-

parability, blinding, loss of data, outcomes measurements, sta-

tistical analysis, and reproducibility. We considered the

percentage of affirmative answers as the raw score for internal

validity. To assure interrater reliability, 2 reviewers indepen-

dently evaluated a subset of studies, and their scores were com-

pared using the Kappa statistic.

SPSS 10.0 statistical software (SPSS, Chicago, Ill) was used

to analyze all data. Descriptive statistics were reported for each

interval validity criterion for all studies and compared accord-

ing to the category in which each study was placed.

RESULTS

Study Descriptions

We found 45 laboratory studies that met our inclusion cri-

teria published in 12 journals between 1956 and 2001; of these,

6 focused specifically on parapsychology. A search for random-

ized controlled clinical trials recovered a total of 45 studies pub-

lished in 35 different journals between 1965 and 2001. These 45

trials included a total of 8,455 study participants.

Study Quality

Laboratory

Quality scores for laboratory studies ranged from 73% to

95% out of a maximum of 22 quality variables, with a mean

score of 18/22 (82%). The mean quality score for hands-on-

healing in laboratory studies was 82% in a total of 25 studies,

while the mean quality score for distance-healing studies was

81% in a total of 20 studies. These 2 interventions scored sim-

ilarly according to overall internal validity quality.

...This review has a number of limitations. We restricted our

review to randomized controlled group studies. This made the

overall quality of these studies high and perhaps not reflective of

the overall wide range of the literature. A

...Conclusion

Healing techniques have been practiced worldwide since

the origin of human culture. Research on these practices is still

in the beginning stages and needs to be expanded. Standard

definitions of the healing techniques are needed, and quality

should be improved. The current body of research on healing

shows that studies of distance healing have higher quality than

hands-on healing, and laboratory studies are better conducted

than clinical studies in terms of comparability, blinding, relia-

bility, sensitivity, confidence intervals, outcome measures, and

replication.

Feel free to review the study of studies on the 22 factors they used to measure the quality of the studies they reviewed.

May, I appreciate the question - its a fair and good one. I do wonder though, if a guy whose leg was amputated and then prays and his leg grows back overnight isn't evidence of an answered prayer, I'm not sure any evidence will ever be sufficient for you. I've happily provided peer review studies from Harvard, Stanford, JAMA, pubmed, etc. I've provided medical records, doctor's testimonies, eye witness accounts, news articles, videos of a miracle occurring where the paralyzed Delia Knox gets up out of her wheel chair after 2 decades and walks after being prayed for. I've provided dozens of statements from doctors, who are leaders in their field of study, saying that specific miracles were indeed, in their words, 'miracles', and that there was no natural explanation for the miracles and healings. These doctors come from Harvard, Stanford, John Hopkins, the Mayo Clinic, and Mt Sinai hospital. It seems that the evidence I've provided is way beyond 'hearsay'. My observation is that those claiming there is no evidence that prayer works are the ones who have been dealing in 'hearsay'. When I provided sworn court testimony from the doctor's who amputated the man's leg and the doctor's who verified that it had returned. That's not hearsay - but the spurious arguments to try and dismiss their testimony was definitely 'hearsay' as no evidence was produced that showed the account was anything but what it stated.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

How's your dad? Hope he's okay. No matter what our differences are on line I know the emotional toll of having a loved one on hospice takes. I would imagine you have a church who is praying for you and he?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

How's your dad? Hope he's okay. No matter what our differences are on line I know the emotional toll of having a loved one on hospice takes. I would imagine you have a church who is praying for you and he?

My dad has 2 forms of cancer - one in his kidneys and liver and one in his back. The one in the back has grown into his nerves and he can't walk or sit up anymore. He is in a lot of pain. I live near DC and I'm trying to travel back and forth to see him every week (he lives about 3 hours away). My church is praying. I do appreciate you asking.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

You have done a lot indeed, except answer my question. I will repeat it:

What specific criteria do you use to separate noise from effect?

To remind you, the question was asked in the context of your claim that hundreds of millions of prayers have been answered.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

You have done a lot indeed, except answer my question. I will repeat it:

What specific criteria do you use to separate noise from effect?

To remind you, the question was asked in the context of your claim that hundreds of millions of prayers have been answered.

LOL. May, I'm the only one providing evidence. You atheists have spent 10 pages denying evidence exists and quite comically I have to say. I especially liked the evil twin theory to try and explain the miracle where the guy's leg grew back after being amputated.

I provided you the link to the Systemic study of prayer studies. I am not a teaching assistant, so I shouldn't be doing your work for you. I'll reference the criteria they used to determine which studies met their standards for inclusion to help you though:

Controls

All studies had a control group present because this was

one of our inclusion criteria for the study.

Randomization

All studies were randomized because this was one of our

inclusion criteria for the study.

Group Baseline Comparability

We observed that group baseline comparability (GBC) was

more frequently reported in laboratory (98%) than in clinical

studies (75%) and that distance healing was more likely to report

GBC (92%) than hands-on healing studies (81%).

Sample Blinding

It was more common for distance healing studies (87%) to

report sample blinding (SB) than hands-on healing studies

(65%), and laboratory studies utilized SB (79%) more often than

clinical studies (74%).

Adequacy of Blinding

Checking for adequacy of blinding scored relatively low for

both clinical and laboratory studies and was less likely to be conducted in clinical and hands-on healing studies (22%) than laboratory and distance healing studies (55%).

Dropout Rates

Laboratory studies more frequently had dropout rates below

20% for hands-on healing than distance healing studies, whereas

in just about all clinical trials, dropout rates were below 20%.

Outcomes

Almost all studies had clearly defined outcomes with laboratory studies (100%) more often defining single primary outcomes than clinical studies (94%).

Reliability of Outcome Measures

Establishing reliable outcome measures was far more common in laboratory (84%) than in clinical (52%) studies, but quite

similar between distance and hands-on healing studies.

Sensitivity of Measurements

Hands-on healing and distance healing studies scored similarly on whether sensitivity of measurements were assessed. While

distance healing clinical studies (50%) addressed this considerably

less often than did laboratory distance healing studies (100%),

hands-on healing laboratory studies (76%) addressed this only

slightly more than hands-on healing clinical studies (70%).

Statistics analysis

Power Calculations. Power calculations were conducted in fewer

than 30% of these studies overall. However, distance healing

tudies (34%) estimated power more often than hands-on healing (17%) studies, and clinical (38%) studies more so than laboratory (15%) studies.

P Values. Almost all studies reviewed used P values.

Confidence Intervals.
Confidence intervals were used more often

in laboratory studies (60%) than in clinical (12%) studies, but

there was no difference between hands-on healing and distance

healing studies (35% versus 37%).

Multiple Outcomes.
Corrections for multiple outcomes were

used for most studies when applicable. Laboratory studies (98%)

scored higher than clinical studies (71%) in reporting this, and

there was no difference between hands-on healing and distance

healing studies (85% versus 84%).

Independent Replication.
Independent replication is lacking

in the majority of these studies and is needed to strengthen

the quality of research.

For the study selection, the following criteria were used:

1. Random assignment between groups in the study;

2. Control interventions that used placebo, sham, or other

“blindable” procedures;

3. Publication in peer-reviewed journals (no abstracts, theses, or unpublished articles);

4. Clinical condition being studied for the clinical set;

5. A healer being involved in the intervention;

6. English language; and

7. Studies published after 1955 to December 2001.

pages 4-5 of the PDF version provide the evaluation criteria.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

LOL. May, I'm the only one providing evidence.

You say that but never provide evidence. You only provide unexplained and/or fabricated things with the claim "god did it". You provided nothing that can be experimented, repeated and observed in an empirical sense.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I am not asking for evidence or denying anything. I am asking a simple question, which I will have to repeat for the 3rd time now:

What specific criteria do you use to separate noise from effect?

Specifically, when you claim that 200 million or however many prayers were answered last year, what criteria does this claim rely on? What you cited is unrelated to my question.

The study you linked is also fun, in that in the Results section it cites incredibly low validity values and unforgivable methodological problems (you can read more on them in the very text that you just cited - I certainly hope you have read through it before posting). It essentially has the opposite conclusion of what you claim, but I will let it slide because it is not relevant to our conversation.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

LOL. May, I'm the only one providing evidence.

You say that but never provide evidence. You only provide unexplained and/or fabricated things with the claim "god did it". You provided nothing that can be experimented, repeated and observed in an empirical sense.

You got to cut back on your meds. I provided certified court testimony from 24 eye witnesses, 6 of which where medically related of a man whose leg was amputated and 2 years later grew back overnight and was fully functional. The testimonies were certified by the King of Spain's personal record keeper. Explain to me how a leg cut off 2 inches below the knee grows back overnight, 2 years later and is fully functional? Because that is exactly what the eye witnesses and the medical records claimed.

Of course you can't replicate a miracle - that's what makes it a miracle. Of course all the examples of miracles are not naturally reproducible, if they were, then they would be naturalistic and not evidence of God's intervention. What you have denied is documented evidence of God's intervention. You might want to see if you can join MayCaesar's science of the gaps chorus line.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Me: You say that but never provide evidence. You only provide unexplained and/or fabricated things with the claim "god did it". You provided nothing that can be experimented, repeated and observed in an empirical sense.

You: You got to cut back on your meds. I provided certified court testimony from 24 eye witnesses, 6 of which where medically related of a man whose leg was amputated and 2 years later grew back overnight and was fully functional. The testimonies were certified by the King of Spain's personal record keeper. Explain to me how a leg cut off 2 inches below the knee grows back overnight, 2 years later and is fully functional? Because that is exactly what the eye witnesses and the medical records claimed.

Of course you can't replicate a miracle - that's what makes it a miracle. Of course all the examples of miracles are not naturally reproducible, if they were, then they would be naturalistic and not evidence of God's intervention. What you have denied is documented evidence of God's intervention. You might want to see if you can join MayCaesar's science of the gaps chorus line.

LOL thanks for proving my point. The miracle of life is replicated all the time, no evidence of a god. Try again.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Me: You say that but never provide evidence. You only provide unexplained and/or fabricated things with the claim "god did it". You provided nothing that can be experimented, repeated and observed in an empirical sense.

You: You got to cut back on your meds. I provided certified court testimony from 24 eye witnesses, 6 of which where medically related of a man whose leg was amputated and 2 years later grew back overnight and was fully functional. The testimonies were certified by the King of Spain's personal record keeper. Explain to me how a leg cut off 2 inches below the knee grows back overnight, 2 years later and is fully functional? Because that is exactly what the eye witnesses and the medical records claimed.

Of course you can't replicate a miracle - that's what makes it a miracle. Of course all the examples of miracles are not naturally reproducible, if they were, then they would be naturalistic and not evidence of God's intervention. What you have denied is documented evidence of God's intervention. You might want to see if you can join MayCaesar's science of the gaps chorus line.

LOL thanks for proving my point. The miracle of life is replicated all the time, no evidence of a god. Try again.

You get that life having life is reproducible, but non-life creating life hasn't been replicated. Don't operate any heavy machinery until the meds are out of your system.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

How's your dad?

Factfinder

@just_sayin

You get that life having life is reproducible, but non-life creating life hasn't been replicated. Don't operate any heavy machinery until the meds are out of your system.

How do you know? You claiming omniscience now too??? Life reproducing life is still miraculous and observed. Cult quackery is just that.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Of course you can't replicate a miracle - that's what makes it a miracle.

Convenient, is it not?

I know another place where people routinely observe unreplicable phenomena: a psych ward.

That said, I like giving even the wildest ideas a try. In this case, I suppose I can just call abiogenesis a "miracle", therefore it not being reproducible is no longer a problem. As usual, my friend, your argument defeats itself. Well played!

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

So many circles in his "reasoning" can't even spot them all. LOL

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Fantasies always have to be grounded in themselves, since attaching them to any part of observable reality is going to quickly lead to contradictions. There are plenty of people, for instance, who are convinced that they are ugly, even though everyone tells them they are beautiful: "They are all just trying to make me feel good; they are being dishonest". The idea that they are ugly is not grounded in anything real, it is a pure product of their imagination, and they have to construct very elaborate mental labyrinths to square it with all the evidence of the contrary. Yet the full chain of reasoning, distilled down to its essence, ends up simply being, "I am ugly because I am ugly".

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

How's your dad?

I appreciate you asking. I spent 3 days this week with him. His cognitive abilities come and go. He can't move his legs and is bed ridden. They upped his meds so hopefully the pain will decrease.

just_sayin

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

Of course you can't replicate a miracle - that's what makes it a miracle.

Convenient, is it not? I know another place where people routinely observe unreplicable phenomena: a psych ward.

That said, I like giving even the wildest ideas a try. In this case, I suppose I can just call abiogenesis a "miracle", therefore it not being reproducible is no longer a problem. As usual, my friend, your argument defeats itself. Well played!

As I have pointed out, had the miracles I have mentioned are rooted in reality. The miracle of Calanda has eye witnesses who testified under oath in a court along with medical records. The Barbara Commiskey miracle where she was immobile, blind and had organ failure is verified by at least 4 doctors at the Mayo Clinic. She has provided medical records, and her docrtor published the case in a medical journal. That's reality, not in someone's head.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

How's your dad?

I appreciate you asking. I spent 3 days this week with him. His cognitive abilities come and go. He can't move his legs and is bed ridden. They upped his meds so hopefully the pain will decrease.

The pain will if they're giving him liquid morphine via syringe orally. There is another pill and I just did a quick google search but didn't find it. It puts them to sleep, not permanently but as long as it remains in their system they stay asleep till they starve to death. Whoever is sitting there with him is going through hell. I'm not trying to depress you, just letting you know what's down the road as I've experienced it first hand. That is what hospice does. Make the patient comfortable as possible as they die.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

The existence of these testimonies is real indeed. To make your interpretation of them real too thought would take a bit more... work. Miracles are not going to be prescribed to patients with lost limbs any time soon. Medicine, after all, deals with real patients with real issues, not with fairy tales about speaking snakes and turning water into wine via spellcasting.

That, I suppose, is why your father is at a hospital and not at a church. When push comes to shove, people make rational decisions.

Wishing him a speedy recovery.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Very few people recover from hospice.

That's one problem Just-sayin has. Claims of validated phenomenon doesn't mean it happened no matter how elaborate the claim. Without empirical evidence it just remains a claim.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ; @Factfinder ; Praying works for me, why not you?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

How's your dad?

I appreciate you asking. I spent 3 days this week with him. His cognitive abilities come and go. He can't move his legs and is bed ridden. They upped his meds so hopefully the pain will decrease.

The pain will if they're giving him liquid morphine via syringe orally. There is another pill and I just did a quick google search but didn't find it. It puts them to sleep, not permanently but as long as it remains in their system they stay asleep till they starve to death. Whoever is sitting there with him is going through hell. I'm not trying to depress you, just letting you know what's down the road as I've experienced it first hand. That is what hospice does. Make the patient comfortable as possible as they die.

He is on morphine (liquid syringe) and something for agitation. He is sleeping probably 21-22 hours out of the day, He still has a good appetite, but is mind comes and goes.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@MayCaesar ; @Factfinder ; Praying works for me, why not you?

So you haven't prayed for a brain?

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

This is why the basic requirement for a naturalistic claim in science to be considered plausible is its reproducibility. "Witness accounts" and the like may point at the ideas worth exploring, but until there is an experiment that can be reproduced and the result of which convincingly supports or contradicts the hypothesis, we are not talking about reality.

History is trickier for sometimes written accounts are all we have. In that case we try to collect as many of them as possible, put them against each other, try to exclude as many explanations as possible - and, at the end, make a prediction, such as "If our hypothesis is true, then Caesar must have built a large number of the statues of this kind. Let us now look for evidence of those statues existing". Without this last step - a prediction followed by a confirmation - we are still, at best, talking about a plausible scenario.

Needless to say, there are no predictions to be made when it comes to "miracles". It is something that allegedly just randomly happens or does not happen. There is nothing to talk about. We might as well be talking about witches and curses and referencing medieval witch trials as supporting evidence.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ; Praying works for me...why not you?

We know that God does not listen to sinners, but He does listen to the one who worships Him and does His will. John 9:31

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Wow, you truly embrace stupidity. you're still going to hell as your god know you don't love it, you're simply proud of a get out of jail free card after molesting little girls.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; Stupidity is seeing irrefutable evidence for our Creator yet demanding that creation is the product of naturalistic phenomena.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/js/ktwe30nslmxk.jpg

Joeseph

@just_sayin

Yet you claimed the other day 200 million prayers are answered yearly from pentecostals prayers alone , so you're seriously saying God intervenes 200 million times yearly for pentecostals alone , yet no measurable data can you produce for his interventions, whys that?

Also begs the question if your god is so wonderful at answering prayers why hasn't he cured your dad , is it he works in mysterious ways?

Also why have you got your dad in a hospital and not a church?

Your god is curing and helping 200 million pentecostals alone yearly through prayer ,science and medicine cannot come close to your gods "wondrous interventions".seems you don't have enough faith to believe in the magic you keep promoting whys that?

Gods promise to answer prayer be amusing to hear your re -interpretion of what you think these verses mean , no doubt you will put a spin on it where god emerges the "hero" again.

Luke 11:9-13

“So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?read more.

Matthew 21:22

And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.”

John 14:13-14

Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

John 15:7

Verse Concepts

If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Prayer,-God~s-Promises-Concerning

MayCaesar

What happens if I pray for the world in which prayer does not work? Will my prayer be answered?

Now, out of the 200 million prayers that god answers every year apparently, across thousands of years, you have to assume that, at least, someone has prayed for that... Hmm!

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; Stupidity is seeing irrefutable evidence for our Creator yet demanding that creation is the product of naturalistic phenomena.

Stupidity is believing saying "god did it" because a poorly written fairytale elf book of magic and myths told you that was irrefutable evidence. Hint, that means you don't know what evidence is, much less have ever produced any. But your bible does prove morals came from humans resisting cults like Christianity...

Leviticus 2544-46 NIV - Bible Study Meaning Images Commentaries Devotionals and more

Leviticus 2544-46 NIV - Bible Study Meaning Images Commentaries Devotionals and more

tsword

@MayCaesar Why are you even going to pray for that intention if you in the first place don’t even believe in prayer. Second you don't even believe in God, So why the question.

MayCaesar

@tsword

Because I wanted to ask it.

tsword

@MayCaesar. Dum dum why the question answer like a big boy. It doesn’t matter what you say if you pray for the world God will use it.

Factfinder

tsword said:

@MayCaesar. Dum dum why the question answer like a big boy. It doesn’t matter what you say if you pray for the world God will use it.

Oh the irony.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Latimer wins NY-16 primary, CBS News projects, beating incumbent Bowman

In this Debate

Does Praying Work?

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

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

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch