Why I am a good proof that there is a God

[Muffled]

Despite such anecdotal claims for the efficacy of prayer, whenever it has been objectively tested, it has failed to produce any discernible result.

I have no way of being sure of course, but I suspect the voices in your head are your own, as are mine.

I believe I am sure that they are God because I have learned to know His voice by His words from reading the Bible and Qu'ran.

 

[Muffled]

1. The first time God spoke t me was when I was 13. My parents took me to Sunday School but I was picked up afterwards and so did not get to attend church except n Christmas and Easter when the whole family attended. I also attended youth group events and experienced a prayer circle. My belief in God was out of innocence rather than proof.

One day I found that my mother had broken one of 45RPM records. She said it was an accident but I suspected she did it on purpose because she hated the record. I went to a solitary place to pray. I had never prayed before but since I had heard other people do it, I was willing to try. I called upon God to punish my mother. I had no reason to believe that I would get an answer but I was determined to wait for one and wait I had to do.

God answered the way Jesus usually did by asking a question:" Do you love your other?" I relplied , yes. Then He asked: "Do you love your mother more than the record?" I replied, yes. Then He asked if it mattered why the record was broken and I replied,no.

Jesus once said "he who is forgiven much, loves much. He could have said he who loves much forgives much.

1. The second time God spoke to me was when I received Him as Lord and Savior. I was surrounded in my minds eye by a soft light and there was peace in it. Then Jesus said to me: "I fill your cup with love. As much as you pour out, it will never be empty."

 

[Sheldon]

Despite such anecdotal claims for the efficacy of prayer, whenever it has been objectively tested, it has failed to produce any discernible result.

I have no way of being sure of course, but I suspect the voices in your head are your own, as are mine.

I believe I am sure that they are God because I have learned to know His voice by His words from reading the Bible and Qu'ran.

Repeating the same unevidenced anecdotal claim doesn't change the fact, that whenever prayer has been objectively tested, it has failed to produce any discernible result. The bible and koran are just the subjective opinions of believers, they contain no objective evidence for the core claim that any deity exists.

 

[Muffled]

Repeating the same unevidenced anecdotal claim doesn't change the fact, that whenever prayer has been objectively tested, it has failed to produce any discernible result. The bible and koran are just the subjective opinions of believers, they contain no objective evidence for the core claim that any deity exists.

I believe you must be less than logical if you think you can test prayer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you must be less than logical if you think you can test prayer.

Then you are admitting that you cannot claim that there is any benefit from prayer.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe you must be less than logical if you think you can test prayer.

Which principle of logic are you claiming I have violated, by pointing out that intercessory prayer has been tested, and shown to have no discernible effect?

I'm guessing if the results ever confirmed it was effective, beyond a mere placebo, you'd do a pretty abrupt about turn.

 

[Muffled]

Then you are admitting that you cannot claim that there is any benefit from prayer.

I believe I am not admitting that. I believe the value of prayer is in the answers not in the lack of answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I am not admitting that. I believe the value of prayer is in the answers not in the lack of answers.

If you claim that prayer helps you think over your problems you may be right. But there are those that believe that prayers are regularly answered. All tests indicate that this is not true.

 

[Muffled]

If you claim that prayer helps you think over your problems you may be right. But there are those that believe that prayers are regularly answered. All tests indicate that this is not true.

I believe if you ever figure out a way to get God to give you everything you want let me know. Of course it is not regular and usually it is when there is a need and it fits into His plan. Even Jesus didn't get His prayer for His cup to be removed but then He already knew it wouldn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe if you ever figure out a way to get God to give you everything you want let me know. Of course it is not regular and usually it is when there is a need and it fits into His plan. Even Jesus didn't get His prayer for His cup to be removed but then He already knew it wouldn't.

When tested the results from prayer are the same as if God was not there at all. Funny, isn't it?

 

[Sheldon]

I believe if you ever figure out a way to get God to give you everything you want let me know. Of course it is not regular and usually it is when there is a need and it fits into His plan.

An appeal to mystery coupled with a pretty obvious selection bias. When it has been properly tested intercessory prayer has been demonstrated to produce no discernible result.

 

[Muffled]

When tested the results from prayer are the same as if God was not there at all. Funny, isn't it?

I believe the problem is in the test not in prayer.

 

[Muffled]

An appeal to mystery coupled with a pretty obvious selection bias. When it has been properly tested intercessory prayer has been demonstrated to produce no discernible result.

I get results but maybe some who have no faith in God do not. Jesus wasn't able to heal people in His hometown because they didn't see Him as a healer but as a carpenter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the problem is in the test not in prayer.

First off you do not get to reject a test without valid objections. That is not how it works if one develops a test and runs an experiment using that test. Until you can show what was wrong with the test it stands as evidence against your beliefs. Not liking the results of a test is not a valid criticism.


Second if you don't like the test then come up with a proper test. It is the claim of various theists that prayer works. They have the burden of proof.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe the problem is in the test not in prayer.

Subjective bias isn't a very compelling argument.

 

[Muffled]

First off you do not get to reject a test without valid objections. That is not how it works if one develops a test and runs an experiment using that test. Until you can show what was wrong with the test it stands as evidence against your beliefs. Not liking the results of a test is not a valid criticism.


Second if you don't like the test then come up with a proper test. It is the claim of various theists that prayer works. They have the burden of proof.

I believe I don't have to have a test . The reality is that my prayer was answered. And again I do not believe there is any valid test for prayer.

What is the assumption of a test of prayer? I believe the assumption is that prayers will always be answered. I believe that is not the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I don't have to have a test . The reality is that my prayer was answered. And again I do not believe there is any valid test for prayer.

What is the assumption of a test of prayer? I believe the assumption is that prayers will always be answered. I believe that is not the case.

Then you have admitted that believing prayer does anything has been refuted.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe I don't have to have a test . The reality is that my prayer was answered. And again I do not believe there is any valid test for prayer.

You've just made two unevidenced claims, not very compelling.

What is the assumption of a test of prayer? I believe the assumption is that prayers will always be answered. I believe that is not the case.

Not at all, you clearly don't understand how double blind objective testing works, but it would make no assumptions at all. For example in one clinically conducted test, post op heart patients were used, the prayer was for a faster recovery and no complications. So we would already have a broad median for recovery times and complications.

The large test group were split into those prayed for and those not, and some were told whether they were being prayed for, and some were not. NB neither those told or those not told knew of the other group. It was double blind so the testers didn't know who fell into what category until after the results were calculated.

The results showed no discernible difference in the recovery of those prayed for, and those who were not. With one anomaly, those patients told they were being prayed for faired worse on average. This anomaly might suggest the added pressure of wanting the prayers to work, unduly hampered the recovery of some patients.

One thing was unequivocal, the prayers had no discernible effect. It is also always the case that when such "powers" are exposed as false, those claiming them almost never accept this fact, but attempt to preserve the belief, by blaming the testing conditions. Of course religions have a built in safety mechanism here, in order to avoid facing such unpleasant facts, by claiming prima facie that their deity cannot be tested, how convenient.

A final point worthy of note, when I have discussed the efficacy of intercessory prayer, I have yet to encounter a theists defending it who knew about, let alone understood, what a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is or seemed to understand when they were resorting to obvious selection bias.

To paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, you can't dent the blind bias of someone who sees a baby fall from a second storey window, bounce on a grass verge and roll through traffic, to arrive unharmed at the other side, and proclaims it a miracle, but then when a baby falls 6 inches and fatally fractures it skull on the corner of a coffee table, proclaim their deity mysterious. If they can't see that bias, it's likely nothing will help them understand, they can only get there when they abandon the inbuilt desire to preserve the belief against rational reasoned discourse.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You've just made two unevidenced claims, not very compelling.



Not at all, you clearly don't understand how double blind objective testing works, but it would make no assumptions at all. For example in one clinically conducted test, post op heart patients were used, the prayer was for a faster recovery and no complications. So we would already have a broad median for recovery times and complications.

The large test group were split into those prayed for and those not, and some were told whether they were being prayed for, and some were not. NB neither those told or those not told knew of the other group. It was double blind so the testers didn't know who fell into what category until after the results were calculated.

The results showed no discernible difference in the recovery of those prayed for, and those who were not. With one anomaly, those patients told they were being prayed for faired worse on average. This anomaly might suggest the added pressure of wanting the prayers to work, unduly hampered the recovery of some patients.

One thing was unequivocal, the prayers had no discernible effect. It is also always the case that when such "powers" are exposed as false, those claiming them almost never accept this fact, but attempt to preserve the belief, by blaming the testing conditions. Of course religions have a built in safety mechanism here, in order to avoid facing such unpleasant facts, by claiming prima facie that their deity cannot be tested, how convenient.

A final point worthy of note, when I have discussed the efficacy of intercessory prayer, I have yet to encounter a theists defending it who knew about, let alone understood, what a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is or seemed to understand when they were resorting to obvious selection bias.

To paraphrase the late Christopher Hitchens, you can't dent the blind bias of someone who sees a baby fall from a second storey window, bounce on a grass verge and roll through traffic, to arrive unharmed at the other side, and proclaims it a miracle, but then when a baby falls 6 inches and fatally fractures it skull on the corner of a coffee table, proclaim their deity mysterious. If they can't see that bias, it's likely nothing will help them understand, they can only get there when they abandon the inbuilt desire to preserve the belief against rational reasoned discourse.

Yeah, I am with you on that one.
Since I am a former Christian I still use prayers only as a grounding tool to remove anxiety so I can then focus to what to do next and for that I don't use the idea of the supernatural. Basically I use a prayer as a limited cognitive coping tool without being religious, because it happens to work for me.

 

[Muffled]

Yeah, I am with you on that one.
Since I am a former Christian I still use prayers only as a grounding tool to remove anxiety so I can then focus to what to do next and for that I don't use the idea of the supernatural. Basically I use a prayer as a limited cognitive coping tool without being religious, because it happens to work for me.

I believe your experience can't erase my experience.