Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[KWED]

I suggest you read Matthew and Mark's Gospel, then compare it to this 'infancy narrative' of the second or third century.

I have. They both contain unlikely descriptions of extraordinary events.
Why do you consider one reasonable but the other ridiculous?

 

[KWED]

You, the observer, are a part of the universe. You cannot prove that this universe 'doesn't change' when you observe it
(re quantum double slit experiment)

You clearly misunderstand the implication of those findings. It certainly doesn't mean that the nature of the universe, the laws of physics, etc change because we don't like them.

Nor can anyone demonstrate how a universe could create itself from nothing,

That's quite the irrational straw man. I am not aware of any cosmologist who claims the universe "created itself from nothing". If the universe didn't exist, how could it do anything?

and for no reason whatsoever.

Question begging. Why does there have to be a "reason" for events? That presupposes agency and planning.

Science will take you only so far.

It is reasonable to assume that science will always have more discoveries possible.
However, faith does not take you anywhere. How many of the things that you use - from agriculture, transport, communication, medicine, etc - were developed through faith?
Correct, none.
When you get ill, or your computer breaks, what do you do, pray or call the doctor or technician? As Dawkins said about science...

 

[KWED]

From a human perspective ants and sparrows are necessary to maintain a human centric environment.

Nonsense. Millions of species existed long before humans did, including ants and birds.
And what is an "human-centric environment"?

Similar to this question - why is the universe so old and moving away from us? Because a new universe won't develop metals and a static universe will collapse in on itself.

Whuh?
That makes literally no sense.

And that could be why some planet hit the earth at the correct angle to create our seasonal shift plus the stabilizing moon, and why a meteor
hit Yutacan, of all places, at the right spot to remove all dinosaurs other than birds that would have stopped humans from evolving. Sound crazy? If so then explain the weird odds that make it possible for us to be
here - starting with the basic variables of charge, gravity etc..

Not sure what your point is here. Are you claiming that life must have meaning because some things happened than might not have if things were different?

 

[PruePhillip]

Nonsense. Millions of species existed long before humans did, including ants and birds.
And what is an "human-centric environment"?

Whuh?
That makes literally no sense.

Not sure what your point is here. Are you claiming that life must have meaning because some things happened than might not have if things were different?

I presented to you a human centered universe, as people once thought it was.
Any evidence that it human centric? No.
Any evidence that the universe is NOT human centered? No.

The one thing we HAVE figure out is that yes, humans ARE the center of the universe and the sun DOES go around us,
only it's not just 'us' but YOU. That's relativity.

 

[PruePhillip]

You clearly misunderstand the implication of those findings. It certainly doesn't mean that the nature of the universe, the laws of physics, etc change because we don't like them.

That's quite the irrational straw man. I am not aware of any cosmologist who claims the universe "created itself from nothing". If the universe didn't exist, how could it do anything?

Question begging. Why does there have to be a "reason" for events? That presupposes agency and planning.

It is reasonable to assume that science will always have more discoveries possible.
However, faith does not take you anywhere. How many of the things that you use - from agriculture, transport, communication, medicine, etc - were developed through faith?
Correct, none.
When you get ill, or your computer breaks, what do you do, pray or call the doctor or technician? As Dawkins said about science...

We should use faith for a relationship with God, where we prove things for ourselves as individuals.
Anyone wanting faith to cause it to rain is missing the point of faith.
If the universe is HERE NOW then there must have been a point WHEN IT WASN'T HERE. But WHY did it appear?

 

[PruePhillip]

I have. They both contain unlikely descriptions of extraordinary events.
Why do you consider one reasonable but the other ridiculous?

Because seven authors give us the CHARACTER of Jesus, a latter text appears to make fun of the whole idea.

 

[KWED]

I presented to you a human centered universe, as people once thought it was.
Any evidence that it human centric? No.
Any evidence that the universe is NOT human centered? No.

The one thing we HAVE figure out is that yes, humans ARE the center of the universe and the sun DOES go around us,
only it's not just 'us' but YOU. That's relativity.

No idea what you are on about here. Are you ok?

 

[KWED]

We should use faith for a relationship with God, where we prove things for ourselves as individuals.

Contradiction. You cannot "prove" anything through faith, by definition. It is just "belief".

Anyone wanting faith to cause it to rain is missing the point of faith.

So prayer cannot cause it to rain, or cure illness, or any other physical effect?

If the universe is HERE NOW then there must have been a point WHEN IT WASN'T HERE.

Only if the universe began to exist.

But WHY did it appear?

Why does there have to be a "why"?

 

[KWED]

Because seven authors give us the CHARACTER of Jesus, a latter text appears to make fun of the whole idea.

More question begging. You are assuming that the texts you accept are acceptable and the ones you reject are unacceptable.
If a different set of texts were accepted in the beginnings of Christianity, you would have a different understanding of the character of Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

Not needed. My conscience is used for that. In fact, what does it mean that you wouldn't do that anyway without the belief that a deity exists that expects it of you?

Of course, it could be the God DNA working in you conscience but I am glad that it is in your conscience. More people need that.

You are free to live with prayer. I choose reason. I choose action.

Prayer can also demand action (another point of why the test is not as good as it was made out to be)... but I am glad that you do have action.

Not really. Doing something is better that doing nothing whether you also pray or not. The STEP study showed us that. I realize that you have problems with the study design, but the scientific community vets the study design prior to funding it and then again in peer review once the paper is published. The church is not a peer. Lay opinions in conflict with the experts have no standing with the scientific community or the community of critical thinkers. The creationists need to be reminded of this frequently when they claim that the theory of evolution doesn't meet their standards and is disputed. Uninformed opinions aren't being debated except by the uniformed.

I disagree. If the "scientific community" doesn't consult with where the information comes from, they are already messing up. If you want to make a study on

Does every theist have trouble with the concept that atheists don't believe in gods or God? Atheists don't blame gods any more than they blame vampires and leprechauns. Presumably you don't believe in the latter either, and can imagine understand what you would think of somebody who does believe in them but keeps speaking to you as if you do as well. "Don't blame the leprechauns for you not being able to find the pot of gold." "But I don't. I don't believe they exist." "Why are you in open rebellion with leprechauns?" "I'm not. There are no such things." "You know in your heart that there are, but you want to avoid accountability to them." [sigh] "Whatever."

Is there any relevance to this post on "atheism"? I don't think that has anything to do with what we are talking about.

You have no answers, just faith-based guesses. And a great game of pigeon chess.

Answers to what? I think you need to open a new thread to those NEW questions.

 

[Kenny]

I don't think logic means what you think it means, and given


There is no objective evidence for this, and again the objective evidence we do have demonstrated it had no discernible effect. I'd like at least to say it does no harm, but we have ample evidence that belief in the efficacy of prayer has had disastrous consequences where people in desperate need of medical aid are denied it by those favouring prayer and faith, with fatal consequences.

I have linked multiple studies.

So it invalidates your statement.

 

[PruePhillip]

More question begging. You are assuming that the texts you accept are acceptable and the ones you reject are unacceptable.
If a different set of texts were accepted in the beginnings of Christianity, you would have a different understanding of the character of Jesus.

Sure, but there wasn't a different set of texts.

 

[Kenny]

There is a clear pattern developing. You really don't like having to address difficult issues, do you.

This merits a response.

You have a clear difficulty in addressing reality and backing up your statements with facts.

Do you have a faith issue?

 

[PruePhillip]

Contradiction. You cannot "prove" anything through faith, by definition. It is just "belief".

True. But the bible says that if you REMAIN as a person of 'faith' with no experience then you don't have understand what
it is you claim to belong to. Faith in the Gospels is for those who enter the church, but it must grow beyond that.

 

[PruePhillip]

No idea what you are on about here. Are you ok?

Then re-read it. Save it even. It's provocative.

 

[Kenny]

That seems pretty patently true. We do not choose what we believe and what we do not believe.

We are either convinced and then believe or we are not convinced and do not believe. But being convinced is not a choice: it is simply whether the argument and evidence convinces you.

We *can* choose to ignore the contrary evidence and *say* that we believe. But that is simply lying, perhaps even to ourselves. That isn't actual belief.

That's another thread.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No it isn't.
Most of the time we can simply accept what our senses tell us, because it corresponds to what is reasonable and expected. It is only when they tell us things that contradict accepted reality or expectation or logic that we should demand verification.

If there is a knock on my door and I open it to find the postman, I do not need to question my experience. If I open the door and it is a miniature talking giraffe, I should be sceptical.
Not a difficult concept to grasp.

Maybe your problem is that you deny that the spiritual realm is just as real as the physical realm.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There is nothing difficult about believing by faith. Or virtuous. Faith, by definition, is unexamined belief.

No, it's evidence of things not seen. It's not blind.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, it doesn't, but outgrowing magical thinking is part of growing up

Unless we actually live in a " magical" realm as much as a physical universe...

 

[Wildswanderer]

Sorry you feel that way. Life has been good outside of religion.

It's boring in my experience. We are so much more than our bodies.