Atheists Only: Would this be proof?

[lilithu]

Yes, yes, I'm not an atheist. But let me just say that I agree with what eudaimonia, Mystic and others said. All it proves is that prayer works, but it doesn't show why. For all we know there could exist as yet undetected "mentons" that when directed at other people can improve their health.

 

[Katzpur]

Strange question? If the half that was prayed for healed and those who were not prayed for died, of course it would be necessary to dig deep to find out why! It could be that those who died had a worse health condition.

Obviously my intent was to start out with the assumption that they were all equally ill.

But, medical experiments have been conducted of this type and those who were prayed for did NOT do any better than the rest.

Actually, I've heard conflicting reports, but that is neither here nor there.

I assume you have some point to make over what seems simple to me. Why not tell us what your point is?

I really don't have a point to make. I can assure you -- as can most every long-time RFer reading this -- that if I have a point to make, I am generally pretty upfront about stating it. I was really just curious more than anything else, as to what kind of "overwhelming evidence" would be required for the atheists here on RF to acknowledge the possibility of a Higher Power. I wasn't trying to do anything more than that.

I will say one thing, though, that I have noticed in the majority of the posts I've seen so far. I find it really interesting that almost all of you have immediately jumped to a conclusion that the results of the experiment were not accurate or that the control data was bad or something of that nature. That strikes me as kind of funny, since it's the first time I've seen the tables turned that way. So often, when atheists attempt to disprove the existence of God and offer up "proof" for their position, the theists responses are all, "Well, that doesn't prove anything! Maybe God intervened and that's why we got the results we did!" To me, all that anyone (theist or atheist) has managed to prove so far is that our belief or disbelief is something that is so internalized that "proof" or even "compelling evidence" is dismissed if it contradicts what we already think we know.

 

[Katzpur]

All it proves is that prayer works, but it doesn't show why.

If the individuals being prayed for neither believed in God nor knew that they were being prayed for, can you suggest a reason behind your conclusion that "prayer works"?

The results are that prayer heals people with cancer. But it's an interpretation to say that God is responsible for that healing. A scientist would look for a physical explanation for the results.

I see what you're getting at, and I guess I didn't adequately explain the controls that would have to be in place. It goes without saying that in my hypothetical, impossible-to-create example, everyone would be equally ill, the doctors in each case would be equally qualified, etc. Since we're just pretending anyway, we could say that they all had exactly the same kind of cancer, were all treated by the same very busy team of doctors and had the exact same prognosis. The only real differences would be that (1) prayers were offered on behalf of half of the individuals and (2) the group being prayed for recovered and the others died. There were no exceptions. Maybe 500,000 people isn't a big enough number, I don't know. I'm just saying that even if I did not believe in God, with results like that, I'd have to stop and reconsider. If, as a doctor and a scientist, I could find no evidence that I'd overlooked some other factors, I'd probably become a believer. Again, if somebody else would just brush the whole thing off as a huge coincidence, that's fine too. I guess it's just something I'm not able to understand.

 

[gnomon]

Calling all atheists! :shout Okay, first off, I am not proselytizing, so don't bother getting out the boxing gloves. I couldn't care less that you don't believe in God (for the sake of argument, let's say the Abrahamic God). So, let's get that straight for starters. It's just that I've heard so many atheists say, "Give me proof and I'll believe in God." I don't even bother trying, because I know I can't prove that God exists. Whenever a theist does attempt to come up with proof, you guys refuse to accept it. I can't say that I blame you since I don't find their proof particularly compelling myself. Today, my husband and I were having a conversation that made me think about starting this thread. Basically, it had to do with prayer and with God's will.

I started wondering about a hypothetical, although impossible, situation that, in my opinion, could -- if it were feasible -- be considered proof of God's existence. Let's say we had a group of 500,000 people, all of whom were terminally ill and none of whom were in any way religious. They could be either agnostic or atheist, I suppose, but they definitely would not be the kind of people who would ever pray, asking that God heal them, nor would they solicit the prayers of others on their behalf. Let's assume that they were all close to death and resigned to the fact that the end was near. Now, let's say that these people were split into two groups of 250,000 each. The prayers of all Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world were offered up to God, pleading with Him to heal the dying individuals within the first of these two groups. No one, however would pray for anyone in the second group. Within a relatively short period of time (let's say two weeks), every single one of the 250,000 individuals for whom prayers were offered were "miraculously" healed. Without a single exception, all of them were as healthy as they'd been at any time in their lives. On the other hand, during this same period of time, every last one of the 250,000 who had not had anyone pray for them (and had not prayed for themselves) died, as had been expected.

Would these results, if they were exactly as I described them, possibly cause you to re-think you lack of belief in God? Would they, in other words, be sufficient to make you to believe in God? If not, to what would you attribute the results of the experiment? (Please don't start by telling me that such an experiment would be impossible to perform. I may be a theist, but I'm honestly not quite that stupid! Just pretend that we actually could do this experiment and come up with the results I stated and take it from there.)

Since this is not a debate forum, I'm just looking for answers. I may or may not come back with further thoughts of my own.

No. It would not change the fact that I hold God to be irrelevant. Instead, I would kick myself for not playing a lottery number.

 

[lilithu]

Man... I thought I deleted that post in time. After posting it, it was no longer clear to me whether you were talking about eudaomonia's and Mystic's responses or whether you were talking about some earlier responses which did seem to question the validity of the experiments.

If the individuals being prayed for neither believed in God nor knew that they were being prayed for, can you suggest a reason behind your conclusion that "prayer works"?

As I suggested in my first post, maybe there's an as yet undetected thing that we'll call a "menton." Our brains generate mentons when we pray for the well being of others, and these mentons are directed at them. And they have healing properties. Yes, it's a lot of scifi speculation, but as I said, provided that the results of the experiment clearly show that prayer works, a scientist will go looking for a physical explanation as to why it works. Science will never postulate God as being the cause. It can't because that's not how science works. Every explanation has to have a physical basis. And it has to be simpler than the thing it's explaining.

I see what you're getting at, and I guess I didn't adequately explain the controls that would have to be in place. It goes without saying that in my hypothetical, impossible-to-create example, everyone would be equally ill, the doctors in each case would be equally qualified, etc. Since we're just pretending anyway, we could say that they all had exactly the same kind of cancer, were all treated by the same very busy team of doctors and had the exact same prognosis. The only real differences would be that (1) prayers were offered on behalf of half of the individuals and (2) the group being prayed for recovered and the others died. There were no exceptions. Maybe 500,000 people isn't a big enough number, I don't know. I'm just saying that even if I did not believe in God, with results like that, I'd have to stop and reconsider. If, as a doctor and a scientist, I could find no evidence that I'd overlooked some other factors, I'd probably become a believer. Again, if somebody else would just brush the whole thing off as a huge coincidence, that's fine too. I guess it's just something I'm not able to understand.

I understood all of that in your first post. I'm assuming that the experiment was done absolutely flawlessly, and that the experiment conclusively shows that prayer heals people with cancer. It still wouldn't prove the existence of God for the reason I gave above. All it proves is that there's something that we don't as yet understand that has healing properties. But a scientist, and I assume most atheists, would assume that whatever the explanation is, it will be a material/physical cause.

 

[SoyLeche]

Ok, of course this is a hypotheical experiment, so how do you make sure it is really double blind?

DO you have one group issue phony prayers? Or do you just pray anonymously over one group (say out of contact with them)? Do you rotate the beds around so one group doesn't think anything is different? I'm just not sure how you would get this true double blind structure.

Even if you could, I don't think this would prove the existence of god(s), but perhaps the power of some type of positive thought or powers of someone

--des

First of all - the sick people aren't the ones doing the praying. All of the Religious people of the world are doing it - and they are simply praying that God will heal those in group #1. The only people who know which patients are in group #1 are those who designed the experiment, and God of course The patients don't know, the doctors don't know, those praying don't know.

 

[lilithu]

Hi soymilk.

First of all - the sick people aren't the ones doing the praying. All of the Religious people of the world are doing it - and they are simply praying that God will heal those in group #1. The only people who know which patients are in group #1 are those who designed the experiment, and God of course The patients don't know, the doctors don't know, those praying don't know.

I didn't get this from Katz's original description. If this is the case - that the people praying do not know who they're praying for - my hypothetical explanation would not work. And I can't think of an explanation that would.

So... just speaking for myself personally, I would have to consider that God was behind it. Granted that I'm not an atheist so it may be easier for me to consider that possibility, but I also do not have a conception of God where God intervenes in such a partisan way. I would have to reconsider. (Can't speak for others and will be interested to hear what they say.)

Thanks for the clarification soy, and sorry Katz, if this is what you indeed meant, for my causing you any frustration.

 

[SoyLeche]

Hi soymilk.

I didn't get this from Katz's original description. If this is the case - that the people praying do not know who they're praying for - my hypothetical explanation would not work. And I can't think of an explanation that would.

So... just speaking for myself personally, I would have to consider that God was behind it. Granted that I'm not an atheist so it may be easier for me to consider that possibility, but I also do not have a conception of God where God intervenes in such a partisan way. I would have to reconsider. (Can't speak for others and will be interested to hear what they say.)

Thanks for the clarification soy, and sorry Katz, if this is what you indeed meant, for my causing you any frustration.

It wasn't in Katz's description. I added the improvements on my own. Katz can take them or leave them

 

[fantome profane]

Let's say we had a group of 500,000 people, all of whom were terminally ill and none of whom were in any way religious. They could be either agnostic or atheist, I suppose, but they definitely would not be the kind of people who would ever pray, asking that God heal them, nor would they solicit the prayers of others on their behalf. Let's assume that they were all close to death and resigned to the fact that the end was near. Now, let's say that these people were split into two groups of 250,000 each. The prayers of all Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world were offered up to God, pleading with Him to heal the dying individuals within the first of these two groups. No one, however would pray for anyone in the second group. Within a relatively short period of time (let's say two weeks), every single one of the 250,000 individuals for whom prayers were offered were "miraculously" healed. Without a single exception, all of them were as healthy as they'd been at any time in their lives. On the other hand, during this same period of time, every last one of the 250,000 who had not had anyone pray for them (and had not prayed for themselves) died, as had been expected.

Interesting question. I have often asked myself what could possible be considered sufficient proof of “God” (that is the Abrahamic God or something similar), and I have not been able to think of anything. But the experiment that you suggest is interesting.

If such a study were to occur and yield these results it would be very significant. It would not be something that I would dismiss. I would be even more impressed if the group that was healed included some amputees who had their missing limbs restored instantaneously. But even so it still would not be conclusive proof of “God”. It would however still be evidence worth considering. So let’s consider it.


Lets assume that the study is conducted in a perfectly fair and balanced way (an assumption that can only be made about a hypothetical study). Even with that there would still be different ways to interpret the data.

1. It could be as some have suggested that human beings somehow possess a kind of physic healing power that can be channelled through concept of prayer.

2. It could be that there is actually some kind of powerful being (or beings) that that is nothing at all like the Abrahamic God concept, but that nonetheless decided to respond to these prayers.

3. Or it could be that there really is a God like the one imagined by the Abrahamic faiths.


Now even if we choose to interpret these results within a “God hypothesis” this raises some interesting questions.


Why does “God” not heal those in group #2 as well?

1. Is “God” not concerned about the suffering of those people in group #2? And if this is the case is this the “God” that religious people (Jews, Christians or Muslims) believe in? Is this “God” a loving “God”?

2. Is this “God” somehow unable to help those people in group #2? Is “God” unable to help people unless other people pray for “him” to do so? And would this be the “God” that people believe in? Is this “God” an omnipotent “God”?

3. Is this “God” somehow unaware of the suffering of the people in #2? And again would this qualify as being the “God” of the Abrahamic faiths? Is this an omniscient “God”?


Now I realize that not everyone who believes in a personal “God” believes that “God” must be an all powerful, all knowing benevolent deity, but for those who do conceive of “God” in this way I must point out that not only would the described experiment not be proof of such a deity, it could be considered to be evidence that such a “God” does not exist.

 

[des]

You laid out exactly what my problems are with the experiment (without intending to)-- how are you going to "shield" group #2 from the power of the prayer, if it has any).
As well as my problems with the conception of "intercessory prayer" (that is praying for someone).

It still, doesn't, imo, rule out God, but it does necessitate that I don't view God the same way that many monotheists, at least traditionally, might.



--des

Why does “God” not heal those in group #2 as well?

1. Is “God” not concerned about the suffering of those people in group #2? And if this is the case is this the “God” that religious people (Jews, Christians or Muslims) believe in? Is this “God” a loving “God”?

2. Is this “God” somehow unable to help those people in group #2? Is “God” unable to help people unless other people pray for “him” to do so? And would this be the “God” that people believe in? Is this “God” an omnipotent “God”?

3. Is this “God” somehow unaware of the suffering of the people in #2? And again would this qualify as being the “God” of the Abrahamic faiths? Is this an omniscient “God”?
.

 

[s2a]

Hello Katzpur,

You offered:

I was really just curious more than anything else, as to what kind of "overwhelming evidence" would be required for the atheists here on RF to acknowledge the possibility of a Higher Power. I wasn't trying to do anything more than that.

Been there, done that...as you may or may not recall from my introduced thread:
How to prove God to an atheist (no, really)...

I appreciate the premise (as outlined) that you put forward in this thread, as some compelling "evidence" of [a, or THE] "God". As you have read within the replies lent so far, due skepticism remains (in testing, modeling, and objective verifications, amongst other objections).

I would concede that such a hypothetical (as you propose) might seem compelling "evidence" of "something" yet unexplained (in such an occurrence), or beyond current understandings of naturalistic phenomena.

While I would readily concede that such a phenomena (and outcome) that you posit would seem "extraordinary" (and to date, unprecedented and most unlikely--though I would support and promote such an "experiment" to see if "failure" [a negative result] would cause people of faith to thusly abandon their beliefs in prayer, or pious beseechments of divinely bestowed "healing" interventions).

I submit, and present once more for your consideration, my own thread (being a self-professed atheist) detailing (most specifically) what I would deem as both compelling and unequivocal "proof" of some existent deity, or supernatural entity (subject to His/It's/Their own provided clarifications thereof).

Your presented hypothetical is intriguing, but not especially likely to survive any measures of independently critical tests.

I have submitted what it would take for me "to believe", and as yet, I have found no person of faith to adequately explain why my outlined and expectant burden of proof is unfair, unreasonable, or beyond exercised faith itself to pray that their god "make it so".

 

[Tiberius]

I started wondering about a hypothetical, although impossible, situation that, in my opinion, could -- if it were feasible -- be considered proof of God's existence. Let's say we had a group of 500,000 people, all of whom were terminally ill and none of whom were in any way religious. They could be either agnostic or atheist, I suppose, but they definitely would not be the kind of people who would ever pray, asking that God heal them, nor would they solicit the prayers of others on their behalf. Let's assume that they were all close to death and resigned to the fact that the end was near. Now, let's say that these people were split into two groups of 250,000 each. The prayers of all Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world were offered up to God, pleading with Him to heal the dying individuals within the first of these two groups. No one, however would pray for anyone in the second group. Within a relatively short period of time (let's say two weeks), every single one of the 250,000 individuals for whom prayers were offered were "miraculously" healed. Without a single exception, all of them were as healthy as they'd been at any time in their lives. On the other hand, during this same period of time, every last one of the 250,000 who had not had anyone pray for them (and had not prayed for themselves) died, as had been expected.

Would these results, if they were exactly as I described them, possibly cause you to re-think you lack of belief in God? Would they, in other words, be sufficient to make you to believe in God? If not, to what would you attribute the results of the experiment? (Please don't start by telling me that such an experiment would be impossible to perform. I may be a theist, but I'm honestly not quite that stupid! Just pretend that we actually could do this experiment and come up with the results I stated and take it from there.)

Since this is not a debate forum, I'm just looking for answers. I may or may not come back with further thoughts of my own.

That study isn't a scientific one. my suggestion would be six groups.

Group One: Prayed for and told they are being prayed for.
Group Two: Not prayed for, but told they are being prayed for anyway.
Group Three: Not prayed for and told they are not prayed for.
Group Four: Prayed for but told they are not prayed for.
Group Five: Prayed for but told nothing.
Group Six: Not prayed for and told nothing.

By performing the test like this, we can determine the effect of the placebo effect, and we also have control groups.

If groups 1 and two get a response, then we can safely conclude they may have been affected by the Placebo effect, because the only people who got a result were those who thought they were being prayed for.

If groups 1, 4 and 5 get a result, then it may have been the actions of a divine being, as they were the only groups who were really being prayed for.

My bet though is that each group will display very similar results.

 

[yuvgotmel]

As a computer programmer, myself, who knows something about computers and random number generators, I call fraud, or at best a generous fudging of their interpretation of the evidence.

I understand a bit about how random number generators work too.

There are many scientists who are lifting their heads at Princeton's Research. Their research is not that easily brushed off. In fact, it has become hugely popular, causing many scientists to rethink some things...

 

[SoyLeche]

By performing the test like this, we can determine the effect of the placebo effect, and we also have control groups.

As I've already pointed out - the double blind structure removes the placebo effect. No need to get any more complicated than what I have described.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

As I've already pointed out - the double blind structure removes the placebo effect. No need to get any more complicated than what I have described.

And my answer remains a simple "no."



Theists are not the sole practitioners of prayer. Thus, if prayer is ever proven to work, it still does not prove the existence of God - much less a creator God.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[Fluffy]

Heya Kathryn,
I realise I might be taking your quotation out of context and therefore misunderstanding it but in post 22, you stated an atheist would require "overwhelming evidence in order to acknowledge a higher power. Are you suggesting that atheists have a higher degree of scepticism towards theistic claims (ie they are biased) or have I totally misunderstood you? I can fully understand why we might present our position in an overly sceptical manner but (of course) I would not view my stance towards theism as biased.

Heya Lilithu,
In post 25 you claimed that:

provided that the results of the experiment clearly show that prayer works, a scientist will go looking for a physical explanation as to why it works. Science will never postulate God as being the cause. It can't because that's not how science works. Every explanation has to have a physical basis. And it has to be simpler than the thing it's explaining.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with all of this .

A scientist will go looking for a physical basis but if God is detectable by science then clearly he has a physical basis if only in the moments that he chooses to interact with the physical. Besides the scientist describes an event as physical if it is observable. Clearly, therefore, whatever else a theist wishes to imply by describing God as non-physical, they must agree that in the scientific sense God is physical since they wish to support the claim that they have observed him.

Now simplicity is a different matter. It is true that science will prefer a simpler explanation over a more complex one since given the same amount of evidence, that evidence will go further to support a simpler explanation over the more complicated, therefore making the simpler explanation more plausible. However, that does not mean, by any means, that an explanation must be more simple than that which it is explaining. For example, a watch is said to have a watchmaker by science and yet the explanation is clearly more complicated than that which it is explaining. It is just more simple than the explanation that the watch occured by chance because we have supporting evidence of that watchmaker.

So God is not ruled out per se. Its just that if the only explanation for something is that it occured by chance, and that this chance is staggeringly improbable, then it is even more improbable to suggest that it must have been designed since the designer's own existence (having intelligence) must then represent an even greater statistical improbability. So in other words, explaining something such as the origin of the universe via God as an alternative to chance is a non-explanation unless it can be shown that God himself is more probable.

If we had enough evidence to suggest that God did create the universe then every atheist and scientist would immediatly say "yep God created the universe". It is merely the theistic claim, absent of all evidence, that God is more probable than the universe spontaneously coming into existence, that is fallicious since it doubles the improbability that it attempts to explain.

 

[lilithu]

Heya Lilithu,
In post 25 you claimed that:

I'm afraid I have to disagree with all of this .

A scientist will go looking for a physical basis but if God is detectable by science then clearly he has a physical basis if only in the moments that he chooses to interact with the physical. Besides the scientist describes an event as physical if it is observable. Clearly, therefore, whatever else a theist wishes to imply by describing God as non-physical, they must agree that in the scientific sense God is physical since they wish to support the claim that they have observed him.

Now simplicity is a different matter. It is true that science will prefer a simpler explanation over a more complex one since given the same amount of evidence, that evidence will go further to support a simpler explanation over the more complicated, therefore making the simpler explanation more plausible. However, that does not mean, by any means, that an explanation must be more simple than that which it is explaining. For example, a watch is said to have a watchmaker by science and yet the explanation is clearly more complicated than that which it is explaining. It is just more simple than the explanation that the watch occured by chance because we have supporting evidence of that watchmaker.

So God is not ruled out per se. Its just that if the only explanation for something is that it occured by chance, and that this chance is staggeringly improbable, then it is even more improbable to suggest that it must have been designed since the designer's own existence (having intelligence) must then represent an even greater statistical improbability. So in other words, explaining something such as the origin of the universe via God as an alternative to chance is a non-explanation unless it can be shown that God himself is more probable.

If we had enough evidence to suggest that God did create the universe then every atheist and scientist would immediatly say "yep God created the universe". It is merely the theistic claim, absent of all evidence, that God is more probable than the universe spontaneously coming into existence, that is fallicious since it doubles the improbability that it attempts to explain.

Fluffy, theroretically speaking, what in your mind would constitute scientific proof that God created the universe?

 

[s2a]

*sigh*

 

[purplehaze]

Calling all atheists! :shout Okay, first off, I am not proselytizing, so don't bother getting out the boxing gloves. I couldn't care less that you don't believe in God (for the sake of argument, let's say the Abrahamic God). So, let's get that straight for starters. It's just that I've heard so many atheists say, "Give me proof and I'll believe in God." I don't even bother trying, because I know I can't prove that God exists. Whenever a theist does attempt to come up with proof, you guys refuse to accept it. I can't say that I blame you since I don't find their proof particularly compelling myself. Today, my husband and I were having a conversation that made me think about starting this thread. Basically, it had to do with prayer and with God's will.

I started wondering about a hypothetical, although impossible, situation that, in my opinion, could -- if it were feasible -- be considered proof of God's existence. Let's say we had a group of 500,000 people, all of whom were terminally ill and none of whom were in any way religious. They could be either agnostic or atheist, I suppose, but they definitely would not be the kind of people who would ever pray, asking that God heal them, nor would they solicit the prayers of others on their behalf. Let's assume that they were all close to death and resigned to the fact that the end was near. Now, let's say that these people were split into two groups of 250,000 each. The prayers of all Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world were offered up to God, pleading with Him to heal the dying individuals within the first of these two groups. No one, however would pray for anyone in the second group. Within a relatively short period of time (let's say two weeks), every single one of the 250,000 individuals for whom prayers were offered were "miraculously" healed. Without a single exception, all of them were as healthy as they'd been at any time in their lives. On the other hand, during this same period of time, every last one of the 250,000 who had not had anyone pray for them (and had not prayed for themselves) died, as had been expected.

Would these results, if they were exactly as I described them, possibly cause you to re-think you lack of belief in God? Would they, in other words, be sufficient to make you to believe in God? If not, to what would you attribute the results of the experiment? (Please don't start by telling me that such an experiment would be impossible to perform. I may be a theist, but I'm honestly not quite that stupid! Just pretend that we actually could do this experiment and come up with the results I stated and take it from there.)

Since this is not a debate forum, I'm just looking for answers. I may or may not come back with further thoughts of my own.

No this wouldn't convince me to "just believe" in God. Your analogy is kind of absurd actually. All it does is beg the question as to whether a God hears prayers and heals people by such a thing. If this god of yours is so real, why would there be any need to pray and request that he or she or it heal at all. It's almost like saying this so called wonderful invisible loving being in the sky created terminal diseases to get the humans he created to beg him to heal and cure people. If such a god did heal people by such a request just to prove he is real, I would spit in his face for allowing such things to occur in our world. He is not worthy of any level of rational attention or worship or whatever religious term you want to slap on it. This God is a loser. He is nothing more than a cosmic tyrant who gets his kicks out of watching people suffer from the terminal diseases he created.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ok.....I would say there is some funny business going on and it's a conspiracy...Maybe other variables are in effect.. Could be the Atheist patience are being treated by theist doctors and they are giving proper medicine to the theist and a placebo to the Athiest. Just a thought.

Since all of the theist have been lumped together...let's see....."God's Will"

It would seem that everything and nothing is the will of "God"........Muslims say that everything submitts to the will of God....

So I would say your question may be a baseless one....

If "God" is responsible for it all (by his attributes - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent)....it would explain you being a theist and me being an athiest....Right???......I mean I'm submitting to his will...Right?????

This is why there are no gods....they're simply not needed.....

That's the question I have....Forget whether you can or can't prove the existance of "God".....because we you can't....

Prove to me that "God" is needed.....