Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Polymath257]

Not really. We use it in varying fashions even in our every day life.

You believe you will receive a check for 40 hours of work before you actually receive it. Otherwise you wouldn't work the 40 hours first.

I hold it provisionally. I would not say that I *know* I will get a check. I would say that I have high confidence that I will based on previous experiences.

But, if the place I work for looks like it might go bankrupt, I would not have as high a confidence level.

Or when you hear the person on the phone say, "I will refund your money and the check will arrive in 2 weeks", in essence you do believe you have it before you received it as you tell your spouse, "They are refunding the money".

No, I would not say that. I would say 'hey said they are refunding the money' and wait until I see the check before I I am convinced.

So, in some sense, we implement it in varying degrees.

Let's look at that with an example and what it would mean if you didn't believe you have received it:

John 9:6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, 7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

If this man didn't believe, would he have gone to the pool to wash? Would he even had let Jesus put clay of spittle on his eyes?

Logic would say, "probably not". IMO

So, he accepts, provisionally that Jesus knew what he was talking about. That is different than knowing.

So, is faith simply provisional acceptance until further data comes in?

 

[Bathos Logos]

The issue at hand is the parameters of which they "make the test". Whether you agree or not with how one is suppose to pray, the spiritual laws that are necessary to implement, is not really the issue although don't mind addressing it.

Unfortunately though, someone doing a study on Tylenol as regards it quenching thirst is, while an incorrect use of Tylenol, something that could literally be measured/tested, even though it will likely turn out not to work in that capacity. In this case, they asked the people to pray, and because we're talking any religion here (as you, yourself even admitted should be perfectly acceptable) then "prayer" is whatever it means to these people individually. Do you really believe that you get to decide what constitutes prayer and what doesn't to people of all faiths? That is what you are claiming here... that there is a "right" way, and you, personally, know what it is. That's ludicrous. It would be exactly like the Tylenol for thirst study being conducted, and when it didn't quench thirst, someone would pipe up and say "But they were swallowing the Tylenol incorrectly!" and then citing that God layed out the specific methods by which one needs to swallow Tylenol in order for it to quench thirst, and gave them a book with this revelation in it.

There is a difference between "excuses" and wrong implementation. I find it confusing that you would think that taking Tylenol for thirst would be classified as "an excuse" instead of the wrong ingredient to satisfy the thirst which would be water or that you would even find that "confusing".

No, I readily admit that Tylenol for thirst is a wrong implementation, but that doesn't mean that its efficacy in that regard cant still be tested or measured. What YOU are doing is the excuse making. The prayer didn't work, and so you are making excuses as to why. An analogy to what you are doing is exactly what I stated, which is that, when the Tylenol didn't work, someone comes back with a bunch of excuses about how everyone was taking the Tylenol incorrectly. That's completely analogous to what you are doing. The Tylenol was found not to work to quench thirst - the parameters for the test were set this way, and the results are what they are.

So, yes, the spiritual laws for prayer are specific.

But a pretty major point like which God you are praying toward doesn't matter? Please think about that in terms of the 10 commandments. Something, perhaps, about having no other Gods before "me" - perhaps you can remind us who "me" is in that context? Again - nothing but excuses. Even your proposed compromise is nonsensical with regard to other articles of your faith.

Yes, He is particular. To exaggerate for example sake, it would be like saying "God should heal a headache when you are praying to finances"

So you're saying that the test-givers asked the people to pray for finances and then measured the amount of healing in the hospital that was enacted? Now, in that scenario, I would admit that the parameters were set wrong. But your ridiculous claim is that asking people of various faiths to pray for healing, but not specifically instructing them to pray how Christians pray, is somehow setting parameters wrong. Why would people of other faiths even necessarily care how Christians pray?

You may find it "petty" but there are laws. There are laws of physics, Do you find laws of physics "petty" when you are trying to use it in science? Is the law of gravity "petty" when you want to fly an airplane?

The "laws" of physics cannot be petty, because there is no intent behind them. No opinion. No mind. No decisions being made to choose one thing over another for specific reasons. It is literally impossible for them to be "petty" - they simply are what they are. However, you Christians give God a mind, even a genius one, and intent, and forethought, etc. So God can be petty. It is that simple.

Regardless, IF they are going to do a "prayer test" but they are going to ignore the context of what prayer is about, it isn't petty, it is wrong application of the laws of prayer.

Please demonstrate to me how you know, for sure, that you have chosen the correct "laws of prayer". And please do not tell me this is "off topic" - it is basically 3/4 of your OP.

 

[KWED]

Where did you get that? You have quite an imagination.

Erm, from your posts.

If that is not what you meant, then why does god keep ignoring all those prayers for children dying in agony, but answering whatever it is that you pray for (still keeping quiet about that, I see).

 

[metis]

Spinoza's god was not "a god" in any accepted use of the word. Basically it was nature. "certainly not an individual entity or creator"

Spinoza's approach was pantheistic or panentheistic, which posits a deity or deities that basically reflect all of what we see, and he often used "Nature" as a substitute for "God". And Einstein stated that he was a believer in "Spinoza's God".

It's sorta like taking the approach that a painting often reflects something about the painter if they do so by their own choice.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Even the stuff that is demonstrably true?
So, if you are such a sceptic, why do you simply accept the extraordinary claims of your religion? Why do you simply dismiss perfectly reasonable, rational, natural explanations?

Because they are not rational.

 

[KWED]

Not really. We use it in varying fashions even in our every day life.

No we don't.

You believe you will receive a check for 40 hours of work before you actually receive it. Otherwise you wouldn't work the 40 hours first.

1. You have signed a legally binding contract that guarantees it.
2. You have the experience of being paid all the previous months.

But you are right in that many suppliers will demand payment up from from a new customer.

Or when you hear the person on the phone say, "I will refund your money and the check will arrive in 2 weeks", in essence you do believe you have it before you received it as you tell your spouse, "They are refunding the money".

In that case, I would reserve judgement until the money had cleared in my account.
You do realise that "the cheque's in the post" is a euphemism for "I'm not paying you"?

Let's look at that with an example and what it would mean if you didn't believe you have received it:

John 9:6 When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, 7 And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

If this man didn't believe, would he have gone to the pool to wash? Would he even had let Jesus put clay of spittle on his eyes?

Logic would say, "probably not". IMO

Erm, that is just a story, a myth. A tale of magic with no supporting evidence.
You need to use an example of a real event.
Also, eugh! Jesus is god and can do any magic, so why the need to rub dirt and spit into the man's eyes when he could just say "be healed!"? Although, the basis of the myth could be healers using poultices on people's eyes to treat things like conjunctivitis or blepharitis, which is not at all extraordinary.
So a good example of how a natural explanation makes more sense than the magical one.

 

[KWED]

This was a personal message between me and my friend Metis which we do often.

No it wasn't. It was a post on an open, public debate forum.

It isn't fiction, it is a movie based on true events.

Often the same thing.

Pearl Harbor movie is based on true events... we don't say "it is fiction" when we watch it.

The backdrop is real, the story is fiction.

But, of course, you knew that so back at ya

You forgot to say what your position is on his homophobia and misogyny. I tend not to hold such people up as good examples.

 

[KWED]

My Muslim and Hindu friends both said the same except it was really Allah/Krishna who is most mercyful and hearing the Christian prayer.

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

 

[KWED]

The claim (now slowly faltering) is that the OT was concocted in Persian or Greek times.

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

The fact that so many names, places,
customs and the like were not known in these latter times demonstrates one of two things:

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

1 - the OT was written as it happened

So Genesis was written during the Big Bang.

2 - the OT was compiled from existing documents

Obviously, it drew on earlier written and oral accounts. Not aware of any historian who claims otherwise.

both statements are the same.

They clearly are not!

As for the 'magic' or miracles - yes I do.

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

But my argument is about the historical aspects that we can verify. Until recently people didn't believe King David existed - now we know he did. You can dismiss his claims of relationship
with God, but you can't dismiss that he existed.

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.

 

[Polymath257]

But people will tell you the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are fictional.

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

 

[KWED]

Now again on this forum - do you believe the Carthagian General Hannibal existed? He was recorded by two Roman writers
with a somewhat wooly outlook on things, so to speak.

What are you on about? There is a wealth of historical and archaeological evidence for Hannibal.

If the accounts of the Patriarchs is not true because we have no evidence for these itinerate Hebrews, then was Socrates a real person? Let's be honest.

You seem to be confused over the actual issue here.
It isn't that there were no nomadic, Jewish tribes around whom the Biblical myths arose. There were very likely actual people on whom some of the Biblical characters were based. The issue is about the extraordinary tales of magic that have been attached to them.
If Ancient Greek texts claimed that Socrates could fly and shoot fire from his eyes, we would righty be sceptical of those stories, even though we might accept the likelihood of a person on whom the stories were based actually existing.
Alexander the Great is a good example. Historical character? Yes. Are all the stories about him true" No.
Jesus. Historical character? Yes. Yes. Are all the stories about him true" No.
If we can accept that about Alex, why not Jesus?

ps Abraham was a witness to the destruction of the Jordan plain ca 1650 BC.

More question begging and unsupported assertion. There are stories that a character called Abraham witnessed the destruction of towns by magic. But we now know the towns were destroyed by natural events.

We now have the evidence for that destruction.
So the historic background to these men is slowly coming to light.

And the explanation is a natural one. So the magical element of the story has gone - just like so many things over the centuries.
Ironically, your "gotcha" moment is actually an argument against your position!

 

[KWED]

And yet Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were wandering Hebrews in Canaan Late Bronze Age - and someone on this forum
just said they were mythic.

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?

 

[KWED]

Yes, his opponent Scipio was the son of the gods,

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

the Hannibal's Numidian cavalry rode giant scorpions into battle.

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

I hold that the whole story is mythic in nature - therefore did not happen.

I agree - because you made it up.

 

[KWED]

Do the laws and principles of faith change?

What are the "laws of faith"?

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Is it *possible* that Agamemnon was a real person? Yes.

Does that mean the Judgement of Paris was a real event? No.

Does it mean that Athena is/was real? No.

Can stories be based on historical events but have details that are not real? Absolutely.

Was the goal of history to convey an absolutely accurate description of events? Not until very recently. The goal was to convey moral lessons and the actual description of events was often 'massaged' to align with that goal.

 

[KWED]

Spinoza's approach was pantheistic or panentheistic, which posits a deity or deities that basically reflect all of what we see, and he often used "Nature" as a substitute for "God". And Einstein stated that he was a believer in "Spinoza's God".

Many apologists attempt to press-gang Einstein into supporting a belief in god. Possibly the least ambiguous Einstein quote on god and religion is...
"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition"
He also said...
"I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist."

It's sorta like taking the approach that a painting often reflects something about the painter if they do so by their own choice.

But we know paintings have a painter. However, we do not know that the universe has a creator. Einstein certainly did not believe so.

 

[KWED]

Because they are not rational.

A person claims they saw angels, surrounded by fire, floating in the sky.
One explanation is that there really were fiery angels.
The other is that the person was hallucinating/mistaken.

You claim that the "hallucination/mistake" explanation is not rational, but the "real angels" one is.
Really?

 

[Wildswanderer]

A person claims they saw angels, surrounded by fire, floating in the sky.
One explanation is that there really were fiery angels.
The other is that the person was hallucinating/mistaken.

You claim that the "hallucination/mistake" explanation is not rational, but the "real angels" one is.
Really?

Yes, I believe people are not lying or delusional when they experience the spiritual, because I have experienced it myself.

 

[metis]

Many apologists attempt to press-gang Einstein into supporting a belief in god. Possibly the least ambiguous Einstein quote on god and religion is...
"The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition"
He also said...
"I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist."

But we know paintings have a painter. However, we do not know that the universe has a creator. Einstein certainly did not believe so.

Einstein did not believe in what we often call a "personal god", namely one that supposedly operates on a human-like scale and acts like a overseeing father, such as your quote above relates to. However, he stated over and over again that he did believe in God-- "Spinoza's God".

My understanding is that most of us that drift in that same direction don't split hairs when it comes to being a pantheist or a panentheist. How could we possibly know which it is?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, I believe people are not lying or delusional when they experience the spiritual, because I have experienced it myself.

How did you rule out delusion or just being mistaken?