Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

I don’t believe prayer has the power to heal people.

Nor do I, look we agree on something.

God has the power to heal people and you talk to Him by prayer.

Well that was short lived, and that looks like semantics as well. Like "guns don't kill people, people do".

If you pray to an idol, you get no answer, just silence

Pretty much the same as all prayers then, unless someone can demonstrate something beyond post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies and selction bias.

If you’re in Christ and have the Holy Spirit and pray He hears and answers you, directs your life.

I don't believe you, and can't lend any credence to such a claim without something approaching objective evidence.

For example you claimed that all prayers are answered, but sometimes they're answered with wait or a no. Now can you explain any objective difference between your perception that a prayer was answered with a no, and no deity existing to answer it?

 

[Sheldon]

If you can tell me who the "others" are here that I'm making false claims about, I'd greatly appreciate it.

The ones you falsely accused of using scientism, without even the pretence of evidence.

 

[ElishaElijah]

For example you claimed that all prayers are answered, but sometimes they're answered with wait or a no. Now can you explain any objective difference between your perception that a prayer was answered with a no, and no deity existing to answer it?

Not sure where the disconnect is on this.
With God I always get an answer. How can you say a no to a request, or wait is the same as not getting any answer at all with a god that isn’t there and says nothing ?

 

[Sheldon]

You raise a good point about how subjective secular morality can be.

That is a straw man, as I clearly didn't say or even imply, that only secular morals are subjective.

This man:
has strong morality concerning the life of unborn children
has a moral stance concerning the rights given by the constitution.

That's a subjective choice, but it's not a child of course, if it is still a part of a woman's body and topologically connected to it, it is either an insentient blastocyst, or a developing foetus.

His morality is different to yous by 180 degrees.

If you say so, he is entitle to his subjective morality, as am I.

This is the problem of secular, 'be true to yourself' morality - which is essentially a political rather than spiritual thing. Yuk.

Your subjective morals differ to those of others, and this is a problem for you, well so what?

 

[Sheldon]

I take this as wholly wrong. One size fits all with
honesty
respect - in dress, for life, others
compassion
forgiveness
loving your neighbor as yourself
respect for authority
decency
hard work
thrift
saving
not drinking (to excess anyhow) smoking and gambling
not porn
not drugs
etc..

There's a religous element to this. There's also a political one which, like this current woke business, is cynical, twisting, ever mutating.

All you're saying is you think your morals are best, again this gets a so what? Listing things you don't like is no less subjective than secular morals.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe then that you can say how prayer works if you don't believe there is someone to answer it.

 

[PureX]

I (don't) believe then that you can say how prayer works if you don't believe there is someone to answer it.

Are you missing a "don't" in that sentence? Because otherwise, it doesn't make sense.

If so, my response would be that often it's the act of stating the need that brings the response. Not that someone/something heard it being stated. Also, not all prayer is about needing something. Much of the time, it's just about personal expression.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
For example you claimed that all prayers are answered, but sometimes they're answered with wait or a no. Now can you explain any objective difference between your perception that a prayer was answered with a no, and no deity existing to answer it?

Not sure where the disconnect is on this.

Yes that has been clear for some time.

With God I always get an answer.

So you said, why you feel the need to repeat the claim when I quote it each time is baffling?

How can you say a no to a request, or wait is the same as not getting any answer at all with a god that isn’t there and says nothing ?

I haven't said this, you do seem confused. Lets try one more time then:

1) You made a claim that: all prayers are answered, but sometimes they're answered with wait or a no.

Then I asked you a question about your claim.

2) Can you explain any objective difference between your perception that a prayer was answered with a no, and no deity existing to answer it?

NB This is not any kind of claim, it is a question, if you look you will see the (?) at the end. It makes no assumptions, and implies nothing, only asks you to explain your claim. Which you seem unable to do.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yes that has been clear for some time.



So you said, why you feel the need to repeat the claim when I quote it each time is baffling?



I haven't said this, you do seem confused. Lets try one more time then:

1) You made a claim that: all prayers are answered, but sometimes they're answered with wait or a no.

Then I asked you a question about your claim.

2) Can you explain any objective difference between your perception that a prayer was answered with a no, and no deity existing to answer it?

NB This is not any kind of claim, it is a question, if you look you will see the (?) at the end. It makes no assumptions, and implies nothing, only asks you to explain your claim. Which you seem unable to do.

I explained multiple times in many different ways and so not going to again so moving on then,

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you're seeing "attacks" where none exist. And "scientism" is the label that's currently being used in relation to the ideal that science is the only reliable method of knowing 'true reality'.

But there you go refuting yourself again. This was not a case where science was seen as the only answer. This is a case where a claim of believers crossed the border to testability. At that point it is in the realm of the scientists and scientists helped them to design their tests. Scientists were not the one that proposed this test in the first place. It was believers, perhaps some of the believers were scientists, that thought of testing this claim.

 

[PureX]

But there you go refuting yourself again. This was not a case where science was seen as the only answer. This is a case where a claim of believers crossed the border to testability. At that point it is in the realm of the scientists and scientists helped them to design their tests. Scientists were not the one that proposed this test in the first place. It was believers, perhaps some of the believers were scientists, that thought of testing this claim.

Honestly, this is all just too stupid to argue about. Debunking claims of "God-magic" is neither the realm nor the responsibility of science. "God-magic" by definition is not going to bow to the demands of scientific "testing". So this whole thing is just a waste of time and money spent in the service of a silly bias. As the many comments on this thread clearly attest. It's the equivalent of scientists trying to debunk Santa Clause. Science exists to explore the realm of physical matter, not the realm of human fantasy. While the Santa exists in the realm of imagination, intended to represent a collective ideal. They really have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Sheldon]

I explained multiple times in many different ways and so not going to again so moving on then,

No you haven't don't be silly, but just link one and we can see all you do is repeat the original claim you made that a deity answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is wait or no.

What you have never done is explain the objective difference, between your perception of a deity answering no to prayer, and no deity existing to answer it. Not one word in explanation of this, you even derided the question for several pages, even saying you would never answer it as it made no sense. Though I now see it actually doesn't make sense to you, which of course explains why you can't answer it.

 

[Sheldon]

"God-magic" by definition is not going to bow to the demands of scientific "testing".

Science can measure the effect or result that theists claimed prayers could have. The only bias I see here is your antipathy towards objective scientific research, which you seem to be blaming for the claims theists made being falsified. I note you don't decry theists for making the claims, only scientists for testing them, very edifying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Honestly, this is all just too stupid to argue about. Debunking claims of "God-magic" is neither the realm nor the responsibility of science. "God-magic" by definition is not going to bow to the demands of scientific "testing". So this whole thing is just a waste of time and money spent in the service of a silly bias. As the many comments on this thread clearly attest. It's the equivalent of scientists trying to debunk Santa Clause. Science exists to explore the realm of physical matter, not the realm of human fantasy. While the Santa exists in the realm of imagination, intended to represent a collective ideal. They really have nothing to do with each other.

Sorry, but that is wrong. Once again it was the believers in God that came up with this idea. It was not those that did not have that belief. When one crosses over into the realm of testable events one has gone into the area of science. Because of your religious beliefs you may think that this was an attempt to "refute God". It was not. It was merely an attempt to test the claim of "prayer has healing powers". That does not appear to be the case.

It would help your argument if you knew what was actually being tested. Your Santa Clause example is an incredibly poor example. By the way, if a Santa Clause believer made specific claims those could be tested. But that would only refute those particular claims,

 

[Sheldon]

As the many comments on this thread clearly attest. It's the equivalent of scientists trying to debunk Santa Clause.

Are you saying science couldn't design an objective test for this? You seem to be digging this pit ever deeper to be honest. though it's telling you compared the theistic claims for prayers to Santa Claus.

 

[Sheldon]

While the Santa exists in the realm of imagination, intended to represent a collective ideal. They really have nothing to do with each other.

Well beyond one being a harmless delusion we create for children, and the other being for adults, what's the objective difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science can measure the effect or result that theists claimed prayers could have. The only bias I see here is your antipathy towards objective scientific research, which you seem to be blaming for the claims theists made being falsified. I note you don't decry theists for making the claims, only scientists for testing them, very edifying.

But his posts do seem to confirm one thing. Those that try to use the accusation of "scientisim" tend to be science deniers themselves. When science moves into an area precious to them, often due to the claims of fellow believers, they will try to levee a false charge of scientism. Scientism only would apply if someone tried to force science into nontestable ideas. As you know that is not the case here.

 

[Sheldon]

Sorry, but that is wrong. Once again it was the believers in God that came up with this idea. It was not those that did not have that belief. When one crosses over into the realm of testable events one has gone into the area of science. Because of your religious beliefs you may think that this was an attempt to "refute God". It was not. It was merely an attempt to test the claim of "prayer has healing powers". That does not appear to be the case.

It would help your argument if you knew what was actually being tested. Your Santa Clause example is an incredibly poor example. By the way, if a Santa Clause believer made specific claims those could be tested. But that would only refute those particular claims,

He seems to want to blame science, just for testing the claims made by theists, which is just bizarre. Especially alongside the endless and unfounded accusations of bias.

 

[Sheldon]

But his posts do seem to confirm one thing. Those that try to use the accusation of "scientisim" tend to be science deniers themselves. When science moves into an area precious to them, often due to the claims of fellow believers, they will try to levee a false charge of scientism. Scientism only would apply if someone tried to force science into nontestable ideas. As you know that is not the case here.

Oh definitely, if memory serves he started a thread on scientism and it was basically just as you describe, a relentless assault on anyone that dared remotely promote the efficacy of science. Any attempt to point out that science was quantifiably our most effective way to understand the universe met with the usually retort it is useless in testing the claims of religion, as if this somehow represented a flaw in the methods of science.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No you haven't don't be silly, but just link one and we can see all you do is repeat the original claim you made that a deity answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is wait or no.

What you have never done is explain the objective difference, between your perception of a deity answering no to prayer, and no deity existing to answer it. Not one word in explanation of this, you even derided the question for several pages, even saying you would never answer it as it made no sense. Though I now see it actually doesn't make sense to you, which of course explains why you can't answer it.

There is no answer for this question then? And no it doesn’t make sense to me is correct.