Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

So we should doubt all studies that claim to be true also.

Scepticism is built into such studies, or they'd be rejected at peer review. The reputation of a research team or scientist who published work slanted by their own bias, would be severely tarnished, perhaps irretrievably. As unlike creationist and religious apologists, they can't just assume the conclusions they want, and bend everything to suit.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Not without a contract I wouldn't, now that contract would be objective evidence right? The kind you don't have..

No...

A business can go bankrupt. You assume they are solvent but you don't know their bank balance.

You asserted I would only accept it on faith, I demonstrated this was false, now you yet again move the goal posts, however even with your sophistry, I would still not have accepted it on faith, so you're still wrong. I would base my confidence they would pay on the contract, and if the business failed then the contract would be my only protection, and this has happened to me more than once, and I have still been paid, try again.

No different when we bought airline tickets from Eastern airline to Honduras and while we were down there the closed their door and left us stranded. We bought it in faith... but in this case it was just words.

Well there you go, you have just presented a sound argument that demonstrates how useless blind faith is. Now before you move the goal posts again, you may want to take your ball out, after the spectacular own goal.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you not understand what wisdom is?

Wisdom is knowing what to do. Intelligence is knowing how to do it.

 

[KWED]

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

No. We have established that I do not simply accept claims on face value.

If they are going to do the test on the efficacy of Christian prayers, they must follow the guidelines of the same

What does the part in bold mean?

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

There's no evidence that this is correct. If we are only the sum of our DNA, then we are programmed to think exactly what we are going to. Our truth would not be objective, it would be severely limited to our perspective, and our perspective would just be the result of random chance.
Man spends an enormous amount of time searching for Transcendence, and theists see this as evidence that we are more than the sum of our DNA.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Socrates (and not just followers of his philosophy) is mentioned in multiple sources that collaborate his views even by people that don't share them.

On the other hand, Homer is likely to be mythical, as is King Arthur.

Each case needs to be considered on its own merits.

 

[KWED]

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.

So you believe that your computer, cars, electricity, medicine, bridges, etc, might all not actually work. We just perceive them to work.

This is the thing you seem to have trouble grasping.
One person's unsupported claim should be challenged, even dismissed. If others can independently reproduce and test that claim successfully, then we should consider it a viable possibility, or even accept it as fact if sufficient testing confirms it.
Your argument is that we must all accept everyone's claims, even if they cannot be verified. Even if they can be disproved.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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?

God doesn't force himself on anyone as far as I can tell. He could, but that wouldn't be love.

 

[KWED]

So we should doubt all studies that claim to be true also.

Not if they can be independently repeated and tested successfully.
Are you really claiming that we should not accept that cars and planes and phones and antibiotics and stuff work?
How do you think such stuff is developed?

 

[Polymath257]

Impossible.

But it is possible to check quite a few of the critical ones and see that those work out as claimed.

It is possible, for example, to get a microscope or telescope and independently verify that certain phenomena exist. It is possible to do the basic experiments for physics at home without too much difficulty. It is possible to do the same with geology: go out and look at actual geological formations.

Do reading of independent sources. Learn some math to verify that they do it correctly.

Go out and observe nature yourself. Verify that what you read corresponds with what you see.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you believe that your computer, cars, electricity, medicine, bridges, etc, might all not actually work. We just perceive them to work.

If I follow your line of reasoning that's a possibility. If there is objective truth in the universe then I can believe the evidence of my senses and perception. Otherwise it's all doubtful.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But it is possible to check quite a few of the critical ones and see that those work out as claimed.

It is possible, for example, to get a microscope or telescope and independently verify that certain phenomena exist. It is possible to do the basic experiments for physics at home without too much difficulty. It is possible to do the same with geology: go out and look at actual geological formations.

Do reading of independent sources. Learn some math to verify that they do it correctly.

Go out and observe nature yourself. Verify that what you read corresponds with what you see.

Lol, I spend more time observing nature than about 90 percent of the population. And what it shows me is a creator.

 

[KWED]

1) You must believe that you receive when you prayer (Mark 11:23)

But most people don't. How can you believe it when you know it isn't true?

2) You must forgive when you prayer (Mark 11:24)

Forgive whom, for what?

because faith works through love Gal. 5:6

How and why?

3) You must pray according to scriptural promises 1 John 5:14-16

What are those "scriptural promises"?

4) You must have faith Heb 11:6

Circular logic 101

Who decided on these laws, and how?

 

[Kenny]

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.

For the third time:

Don't blame God for the responsibility that He gave us.

Maybe if I say it enough:

Matt 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

We feed, give water, help the stranger - our responsibility

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Your faith is to be used in helping feed and clothe:

Is 58:5 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord? 6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

So, in essence, it isn't why God isn't answering the prayers but rather why are we answering His call!

The onus is on you and me.

 

[KWED]

No...

A business can go bankrupt. You assume they are solvent but you don't know their bank balance.

No different when we bought airline tickets from Eastern airline to Honduras and while we were down there the closed their door and left us stranded. We bought it in faith... but in this case it was just words.

Then other contracts kick in, like insurance or travel industry bond schemes. You buy the insurance because you don't have absolute faith in the outcome. The government makes the travel company pay into the scheme because it does not have absolute faith the company will always be able to fulfil its obligations.

The simple fact is that we generally do not simply accept things on faith the way you claim. Obviously with religion it is easier because there is no personal risk or loss (unless you are one of those mugs who who is persuaded to give all their money to a "church")

 

[KWED]

Faith is wisdom - which part did you not understand?

"Faith is wisdom" is just a meaningless platitude. There is nothing to understand.

 

[Polymath257]

There's no evidence that this is correct. If we are only the sum of our DNA, then we are programmed to think exactly what we are going to.

Why would that be the case? There is still a LOT of flexibility in the way that brains develop. And there is a lot of variation between people.

Our truth would not be objective, it would be severely limited to our perspective, and our perspective would just be the result of random chance.

No, our perceptions would NOT be the result of 'random chance'. They would be the result of how we evolved to perceive our environment. And that is determined by what helped us survive. And yes, that has its limitations (as I have already pointed out). We *know* we are subject to various illusions. We *know* that our senses are limited in what they can detect. We *know* the logic is hard for most people. We *know* that people fall into errors of thought and perception unless trained how not to do so.

But that doesn't make our truth not objective. It just means that to figure it out takes hard work, diligence, and skepticism. Mistakes *will* be made along the way: that is how humans are. But those mistakes can also be corrected by further testing and observation.

Man spends an enormous amount of time searching for Transcendence, and theists see this as evidence that we are more than the sum of our DNA.

And I see that as showing that we often go off in strange directions because our biology is subject to certain errors of thought and emotion.

 

[KWED]

Do you not understand what wisdom is?

It is certainly not simply accepting extraordinary claims without any supporting evidence or rational argument.
Wisdom actually requires scepticism. It requires us to question assertions, test claims, consider alternatives.
There is no "wisdom" in blind faith.

 

[Polymath257]

God doesn't force himself on anyone as far as I can tell. He could, but that wouldn't be love.

He doesn't save children from madmen when he could. That is evil.

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, I spend more time observing nature than about 90 percent of the population. And what it shows me is a creator.

Really? Because you have shown a lack of understanding of what the alternative explanation actually says. That leads me to believe you haven't really considered all the possibilities.