Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Wildswanderer]

So when are you coming onboard with the truth?

You can't handle the truth!

 

[Polymath257]

There is for those who experience it's effects. Again you insist on everything having to be physical.

Not really. I think the scientific method works just as well with whatever would be non-physical (although I am not sure what it would possibly mean to be non-physical).

I do think that those who actually detect something should give consistent descriptions and that simply doesn't happen when it comes to religion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nope, you just have an hilarious lack of understanding here.

Apparently you also if you think the world was created by uncaused causes. Do you also believe in married bachelors?

 

[Wildswanderer]

All humans have hallucinations

Seriously? What do you hallucinate about?

 

[Bird123]

I have encountered various quote that the scientific test on prayer showed no change.

My response has always been "I don't think the parameters were set correctly". I can use the analogy that if the blind test for quenching thirst taking a Tylenol, we would say it didn't work but the parameters are wrong. (Exaggeration done to emphasize that parameters are important)

As my signature say, 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.

So, here goes. What were the parameters that were set? Is just having people pray for someone, enough for a comprehensive study?

Let me share some positions--since the question I would have is "who did they select to pray?".

1) Jesus is quoted as saying from Mattew 6:7 AMPCAnd when you pray, do not heap up phrases (multiply words, repeating the same ones over and over) as the Gentiles do, for they think they will be heard for their much speaking.

Are 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.

2) James said, in James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."

if people are praying but praying thinking that God will hear them and then wondering if God will hear them, scripturally God can't get the answer to the person. If these people are included in the prayer test, it would make the test invalid.

3) The people who you want to pray for don't believe, they can actually stop God from moving. In Matthew 13 Jesus had the capacity to move, wanted to move but then couldn't as he said, "58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

This is just three of possibilities so my question is:

Are the parameter of the study taking into account prayer principles? Or just saying "Would you pray for these people" without asking how they are going to pray, what do they believe, what prayer are they going to use et al.

Please stay of topic if you want to discuss this.

There are no conditions on how one prays. Prayer can be as simple as a thought.

God will grant you anything as long as it does not interfere with your lessons or anyone else's lessons. This is inclusive with all God's children. One does not have to follow any religion to gain favors with God. Yes, even atheists are children of God regardless of any beliefs they might have.

Do people and God have different goals?? People tend to want to have it made along with everything in the world their way. God is more concerned with what will lead the children forward along the path of Discovery, Knowledge, and Wisdom.

In conclusion, think very hard on what you actually want God to do for you. Be very careful because you might actually get what you are asking for.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Polymath257]

Of course I believe that the spiritual realm is as real, actually more real, than the physical one.
And given that most people experience it, I'd say your idea that it can't be tested is wrong. Just because something isn't measurable by physical means doesn't negate it's existence.

Funny, those that think there is a spiritual realm seem to not be able to agree on any specifics about that realm. They say it is amazing and indescribable, but that allows for a LOT of variance. And that suggests that it isn't something external to them, but rather a figment of their imagination.

You say it can be tested. Then please describe a test that would convince a skeptic with an open mind.

I also disagree that most people have experienced a spiritual realm. I think that many, maybe even most, *hope* to experience one. And many also confuse their emotions with a physical realm (love is an emotion, for example, not anything spiritual). But I don't think that anywhere close to a majority would claim that they have actually experienced a spiritual realm.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah considering this is a subject that I spent years thinking about and studying, it's very arrogant of you to assume that I have no experience thinking about it.

The problem is that what you have said in this forum doens't show much awareness of the subtleties of most of the topics you have discussed. So, for free will, you dismissed compatibilists with a wave of the hand, which shows you don't really understand their position. You pointed to libertarian free will as a topic, but that betrays a lot of ignorance of the issues involved.

So, if you really have spent years studying this stuff, I would suggest you broaden your horizon, because you have missed a lot.

 

[Polymath257]

Apparently you also if you think the world was created by uncaused causes. Do you also believe in married bachelors?

Hmm...I thought God was an uncaused cause.

At least, that is the case in standard theology.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Funny, those that think there is a spiritual realm seem to not be able to agree on any specifics about that realm. They say it is amazing and indescribable, but that allows for a LOT of variance. And that suggests that it isn't something external to them, but rather a figment of their imagination.

You say it can be tested. Then please describe a test that would convince a skeptic with an open mind.

I also disagree that most people have experienced a spiritual realm. I think that many, maybe even most, *hope* to experience one. And many also confuse their emotions with a physical realm (love is an emotion, for example, not anything spiritual). But I don't think that anywhere close to a majority would claim that they have actually experienced a spiritual realm.

Usually, when skeptics ask us Christians for “proof,” they are usually calling for “scientific proof ” for God’s existence, or the spirit realms existence. We are in an age of scientism—the belief that science, and “scientific proof”—is the only thing that yields knowledge.
To insist that all that happens in the physical world demands a physical explanation is question-begging—assuming what one wants to prove.
In the movie version of Horton Hears a Who, the kangaroo insists that Horton the elephant is wrong about life on a tiny speck of dust. “If you can’t see, hear, or feel something , it doesn’t exist !” Scientism supposes that we can only know through scientific observation. But this is a philosophical assumption; it is not the result of scientific observation or research.
But how does one actually know that science alone yields knowledge?
How can you scientifically prove that all knowledge must be scientifically provable?

Furthermore, knowledge is never 100% proven. The fact is, we know a lot of things with confidence, but next to nothing with complete certainty. When it comes to the knowledge of God’s existence, the theists do not have to live up to Descartes’ absolute standards. We can have plenty of good reasons for belief in God—even if they are not absolute, mathematically certain ones. We are aware of the existence of consciousness, free will, personhood, rationality, duties, and human value—not to mention the beginning, fine-tuning, and beauty of the universe. These are not surprising if a good, personal, conscious, rational, creative, powerful, and wise God exists. However, they are quite startling or shocking and unlikely if they are the result of deterministic, valueless, non-conscious, unguided, non-rational material processes.
Some Christian philosophers like Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff have argued that we commonly believe many things without evidence or arguments—for example, that other minds exist or that the universe is older than fifteen minutes. Why could we not say the same about God’s existence—its logical given what else we know.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Hmm...I thought God was an uncaused cause.

At least, that is the case in standard theology.

So you are admitting that your explanation could leave room for God, and in fact requires a uncaused cause?

 

[Wildswanderer]

The problem is that what you have said in this forum doens't show much awareness of the subtleties of most of the topics you have discussed. So, for free will, you dismissed compatibilists with a wave of the hand, which shows you don't really understand their position. You pointed to libertarian free will as a topic, but that betrays a lot of ignorance of the issues involved.

So, if you really have spent years studying this stuff, I would suggest you broaden your horizon, because you have missed a lot.

I dismissed compatibalism, but that's not because I don't understand it. I once tried to be a compatabalist and before that I was nearly a determinist before I knew what one was. It is as I said, just another form of determinism. Instead of hard determinism, it tries to have its cake and eat it too, by saying free will and determinism can both co exist. It's inherently illogical, IMO.

 

[ppp]

Seriously? What do you hallucinate about?

Most recently - after being involved in a car collision, sporadically and involuntarily reliving the incident for a week or so. Standard PTSD reaction.

Have you never thought you saw someone out of the corner of your eye, then turned to see no one. Or just a coat on a coat rack?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Most recently - after being involved in a car collision, sporadically and involuntarily reliving the incident for a week or so. Standard PTSD reaction.

Have you never thought you saw someone out of the corner of your eye, then turned to see no one. Or just a coat on a coat rack?

I don't consider temporary miss interpretation of an object hallucinating. I don't remember ever hallucinating.

 

[ppp]

I don't consider temporary miss interpretation of an object hallucinating.

[Shrug] Ok. Illusion, then.
What ever you call it, you have misinterpreted or misunderstood sensory input at various times over the course of your life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Um, no by it's very nature, truth is true.
If it wasn't truth, it would be false.

Yeah, start here and tell me which version is true:
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[PruePhillip]

Take your pick of charlatan Christian preachers. Benny Hinn. Jimmy Swaggart. Jim Baker. Pat Robertson. Joel Olsteen. Ken Copeland.

And then there's those who seemed upright but were still bigots, like Jerry Falwell, James Hague, Franklin Graham's son, forgot his name.

So the Bible warns of these people yet Christians flock to them? Something is rotten about Christianity.


Yet it is so pervasive through christianity and conservative politics.

In my experience in Christian church there was seldom any mention of ethics and doing the right thing. Much of the sermons were about compliance to authority and dogma. Many others were so abstract I had no idea what they guy was talking about. Christianity has followed the money, not the message. It is a business, not a mission. They should at least be taxed, and especially since many preachers violate laws and ethics and go on political rants.

I am a Christian and like many other Christians I would not 'flock' to these charlatans. A 'prosperity Gospel' is not what
Jesus taught. And Peter warned of those who would 'make merchandise of you.' Jesus said 'Freely received, freely
given.' This means you ought not take your wallet to church.

 

[PruePhillip]

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

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.

It's about OBSERVERS.
If I say 'It's now sunrise' - is that valid or should I say 'The earth has rotated around so we can now view the sun'
Both are valid, but not just in a metaphoric way.
On the moon you will see 'Earth rise' which would be quite pretty. But is the earth 'rising'? To an observer on the
moon, yes, the earth is rising above the horizon.
Two objects fly past each other deep in space, way beyond our solar system - which one is 'moving' ? You see the
other object flash past but you can't see the object was moving, and fast, because maybe the object was 'stationary'
and it was YOU who was flying past.

 

[PruePhillip]

Is that it?
"It could have been different, but it isn't, so it must be true"?
(There were other texts that were not included in the canon.)

The texts that the early Christians received included notes from the Apostles (mostly still alive)
and letters from the early itinerate preachers (still very much alive.)
These guys kept the church on the straight and narrow. We see with the last Apostle John that
he was having trouble with some renegades such as Diotrephes - probably the earliest Catholic
Bishiop. And Peter was concerned that after his departure 'wolves' would enter the flock, and
his people would be 'made merchandise' of.
By the Second Century all bets were off with many groups wanting to create their own doctrines.
This is where Easter, Christmas, Christian priests, altars, churches, indulgences, rosary beads,
Mary Queen of Heaven and the Inquistion and Crusades came from.

 

[PruePhillip]

The word 'BEFORE' is also a time word. So it also only makes sense within the universe (or multiverse, if you go that far).

I understand where you are coming from. Time is part of space - before space there was no time.
That strangles your head like the 'Grandfather paradox' with time travel (now apparantly solved BTW)
But avoiding 'time' seems to be a way of avoiding 'before the beginnning' musings.

 

[PruePhillip]

No.

Once again, the split happens when the quantum event that triggers the release of poison occurs (or not). Your observation just lets you know which side of the split you are on. It isn't your decision, but rather the quantum event that takes us with it.

I'll take that as a given. Thanks.