Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Polymath257]

Again, the only way we interpret evidence is through our perceptions.
In a godless universe our perceptions are no more reliable than the way an ant percieves the world. Only if there is objective truth can anything be said to be reliable.

Well, our perceptions evolved to give at least somewhat reliable information at the human scale.

Past that, you are correct, we have to be *very* careful. We *know* we are subject to optical illusions as well as illusions for other senses. We know our senses are limited in many ways (for example, we cannot detect radio waves without extra technological help). We know that we often misinterpret our perceptions.

And yes, there is still objective truth whether or not there is a deity.

 

[DNB]

So you accept that it is question begging and subject to confirmation bias, and therefore any such anecdotes are meaningless as evidence for the efficacy of prayer.

Faith is wisdom - which part did you not understand?

 

[DNB]

So the point is not the truth, but rather what gives you comfort?

If what you want is the truth, then yes, skepticism and doubt are key tools.

If what you want is comforting platitudes and self-dishonesty, then faith seems to be the way to go.



Instincts and intuitions are often, even usually, wrong. Always be skeptical and question every conclusion.

Do you not understand what wisdom is?

 

[F1fan]

I can demonstrate that God exists by how he changes people... it's called evidence.

Well, you need to demonstrate a God actually exists, and then IT is the cause for why people change.

As far as the social sciences go it is people who decide to change, or not change, no Gods are known to exist as a cause.

And what about people who DO need to change, like people about to shoot up schools, and groceries, and hospitals, and churches? Is God powerless?

 

[joelr]

No, it isn't debunked. Do the laws and principles of faith change? No. If the principles of faith doesn't change, and God doesn't change then as it is written about Jesus saying, "God rains on the just and the unjust".

Which of the deluge of questions and points do you really want to ask about?

None of this answers to my point and the last line makes no sense considering my point was very clear?
This has happened before, the attempt at muddying the waters. I'll try to be more clear (?)

You stated this -
" I offer a Christian perspective. I also personally believe that God does answer prayer outside of my faith in as much as His mercy is everlasting and it is His goodness (in answered prayers) that draws people to Him."

Which clearly says God will answer prayers not only from Christians but from outside the faith. This means that God answers prayer that PROBABLY NOT HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS YOU IMPOSED.

For example -
"re there people who call prayer "repeating words over and over"? The answer is yes. Heartfelt I am sure yet Jesus very clearly says they won't be heard by God. If they are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid."

So you are saying the test is invalid because the prayer won't be heard by God because it was done improperly.
Then you go on top make several other points about what needs to be done in order for prayer to work.

However you already said this God answers prayer outside the faith. So those prayers would also not meet the requirements, could be to a different God or vary in unimaginable ways. Yet you say God may still answer those prayers. That is the "Christian perspective".

But then go go and read a bunch of rules that you claim make it so God cannot or will not answer these prayers.
Well that makes no sense. Why not keep that Christian perspective and assume that God could have answered the prayer study? You started out saying God may answer all prayers then impose al bunch of rules that may cause God to not answer prayers?

These statements do not match. Keeping the Christian perspective, those rules for prayer are not important. The test was valid.

 

[joelr]

"Yeah, but they're obviously deluded, the poor things. They are praying to imaginary gods, not like my real one", etc...

Yeah everyone has the "real one true God". Because it says so.

 

[PruePhillip]

They may well be, there is certainly no objective evidence they were historical figures. Though I don't think this addresses the context of my post tbh.

Then perhaps Socrates was fictional too. Maybe they ALL were.

 

[PruePhillip]

No he wasn't. Even the Romans didn't believe that. Where are you getting this stuff from?

Again, whuh? As I have explained before, you are probably being confused by references to the Carthaginian "scorpion", a small, battlefield ballista.

I agree - because you made it up.

Either Livy or his sidekick mentioned that Scipio was the son of the gods, and the Numidians rode giant scorpions.
This whole story reminds me of the bible stories - just made up to frighten people Indeed, Hannibal was employed
to silence noise children with the warning that Hannibal was at the gates.

 

[PruePhillip]

The characters in the Bible are mythical. There is no historical evidence for them as specific individuals who did the things claimed in the Bible.
You just seem to be claiming that because some of the events, places and people in the Bible were real, therefore everything is real - which is an obviously ridiculous non sequitur.
The Iliad and Odyssey mention real people, places and events. Do you therefore claim every person, place and event therein is real?

So how did you reach the conclusion that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are mythical ?

 

[PruePhillip]

Yes, because their story conflicts with other evidence. For example, the fact that Egypt controlled the land of Canaan until fairly late.

Egyptian control of Canaan ended during the Bronze Age Collapse. Egypt was lucky to survive - all the other empires
fell. The agency of this collapse was the mass migration of people. This included Hebrews and Phillistines.

 

[PruePhillip]

When was "Persian or Greek times"?
And who makes that claim?

Are you seriously claiming that the Greeks and Persians didn't know anything about what happened in the past?

So Genesis was written during the Big Bang.
Obviously, it drew on earlier written and oral accounts. Not aware of any historian who claims otherwise.

They clearly are not!

You believe the claims in the Quran are true? So why aren't you a Muslim?

Nonsense. Historians have generally assumed that the Biblical David would have been based on one or more historical figures. That is very often the case with such myths. However, there is still no evidence for any of the magical events around him, or any firm historical evidence to pin him down to a particular person, time or place.
Really not sure what point you think you are making here.

There's a story in 1 Samuel about the capture of the Ark of the Covenant by the Phillistines. When the ark returned
the Jews had control of Jerusalem, and the Ark was placed in Solomon's temple. Now if this account was written in
Persian or Greek times WITHOUT extant documents then you are left wondering how these people knew of the city
of Shiloh where the Ark was kept. By this time Shiloh was nothing more than a hill - nearly a thousand years had
passed. IF the Persian or Greek era Jews wrote from existing documents then the Tanakh was written in Persian
and Greek times, but when those earlier documents were written.
Also, by way of example, archaelogy shows that not only was the Ark taken, but the tabernacle and 'horns of the
altar' were destroyed - the whole of Shiloh fell. Not mentioned in the bible because the bible is not a historical
document, but a narrative about aspects of history.

 

[Kenny]

Which clearly says God will answer prayers not only from Christians but from outside the faith. This means that God answers prayer that PROBABLY NOT HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS YOU IMPOSED.

"probably" is an interesting word. And I didn't say "all" prayers and "probably" is a maybe.

Maybe I need to explain a little better and in light of your statement.

I am not born again and not a Christian but I give my life to Jesus and ask Him into my life... did he hear my prayer as a non-Christian? Yes. I used all of the principles and laws of faith.

i'm not really sure what your beef is. Are you wanting God not to be gracious to those who are not believers in Jesus Christ or God?

King David wasn't a Christian but God heard His prayers.

God spoke to Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar in a dream.

Or do you think He doesn't love the world?

 

[Darkstorn]

Faith is wisdom - which part did you not understand?

You just tell yourself that to make yourself feel warm and cozy. It basically ties in with your previous post.

But no, that's just your personal "hope/belief/wish" that would justify your faith. You could just call it Wisdom(tm) instead of "irrational beliefs."

So no, i don't think YOU understand what wisdom means. That's simply your personal definition, one that disagrees with all other definitions. Therefore your usage is confusing/incorrect/has no value.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It doesn't mean all conclusions are false. But it does mean you should check all conclusions and data to be sure.

Impossible.

 

[KWED]

Which I have.

No. You think you met a god. It was almost certainly just your imagination. It is definitely the best explanation for your "experience".
Remember that delusional people usually insist that their delusions are real.

 

[Sheldon]

OK... we have established that you simply don't believe... sooo...

back to the OP.

We have established you always evade refutations of your claims as well, as you did here again.

If they are going to do the test on the efficacy of Christian prayers, they must follow the guidelines of the same... which they did not.

So the double-blind test is incorrect.

I don't believe you, and since your bias is manifest, and the research was not, I'm going with the objective evidence over your subjective bias.

 

[KWED]

There's no such thing as objective evidence for your experiences... they all rest on your perception of reality.

So you accept that your "god experience" could have been a delusion.

 

[KWED]

once you experience God personally you don't have to question which God is real.

Every follower of every god will make the same claim. They are 100% convinced that their god is the real one. Therefore yours is fake and your experience mere delusion.
QED.

 

[Sheldon]

Again, the only way we interpret evidence is through our perceptions.

Still entirely untrue, we use our perceptions, but we can rigorously test the evidence so our perception is not the sole factor, as that is what you are doing, and all other theists who use the same subjective bias and fail to get the same results.

In a godless universe our perceptions are no more reliable than the way an ant percieves the world.

We can submit our perception to rigorous scrutiny. For example you have used a begging the question fallacy here, this indicates an irrational argument. Trying to avoid such fallacies indicates an attempt to reach more sound or even objective conclusions, sadly you either don't understand this or don't care.

Only if there is objective truth can anything be said to be reliable.

Objectivity is a scale from bare subjective unevidenced claims, to a weight or preponderance of objectively verifiable evidence that puts an idea beyond a reasonable or rational doubt, there is no absolute truth, this is a fiction religious apologists peddle. The real irony is that you just claimed in this thread that objective evidence doesn't even exist, now you're claiming objective truth does, and let me guess, you know what it is, and got there by purely subjective personal experience.

 

[KWED]

quote please

In reply to "So remind me why god answers trivial prayers whilst ignoring those to save children dying in agony."
You said...
"To ask wrong is to ask for something that God gave you the responsibility for."

Also, still waiting for examples of your super-important prayers that god took the time to answer whilst ignoring prayers for children dying in agony.