Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Penn

I believe the power of prayer can definitely help health-wise, but how do you separate prayer as a placebo effect from actual supernatural intervention from God? Even scientifically speaking, the placebo effect would depend on how much the patient believed it, something which can't (as far as I know) be measured or monitored scientifically to a great enough extent to separate it from some type of supernatural intervention.

Which basically means it's a moot point akin to sportspeople praying. Praying and belief in God might give them greater confidence, thereby helping them achieve their goal, whereas they would believe God actually helped them, it was their belief in God which acted as a confidence booster and helped them focus which actually helped them achieve their goal by themselves.

In order for the prayer to work, you need to believe God is listening (even if you're not asking him to actually intervene, but even just knowing he's listening and watching). So the power of prayer can't really be measured, can it?

(I'm just spitballing here, no facts or studies behind what I'm saying)

Sin City

Penn wrote: »

I believe the power of prayer can definitely help health-wise, but how do you separate prayer as a placebo effect from actual supernatural intervention from God? Even scientifically speaking, the placebo effect would depend on how much the patient believed it, something which can't (as far as I know) be measured or monitored scientifically to a great enough extent to separate it from some type of supernatural intervention.

Which basically means it's a moot point akin to sportspeople praying. Praying and belief in God might give them greater confidence, thereby helping them achieve their goal, whereas they would believe God actually helped them, it was their belief in God which acted as a confidence booster and helped them focus which actually helped them achieve their goal by themselves.

In order for the prayer to work, you need to believe God is listening (even if you're not asking him to actually intervene, but even just knowing he's listening and watching). So the power of prayer can't really be measured, can it?

(I'm just spitballing here, no facts or studies behind what I'm saying)

I would have to agree with you there Penn. Prayers could be seen as a placebo effect and even though it makes the indivdual feel better , it was all psychosematic, ie it worked because they believed it would work, the kind of opposite effect of voodoo curses, they only worked if you believed they worked, a kind of self fullfilling prophesy

JimiTime

TBH, such a test is akin to Satan saying, 'Throw yourself of the cliff, for God will send his Angels....'
'Do Not put God to the test'

When God wants to reveal himself in a more explicit way to you, he will.

'A wicked and adulterous generation demand signs, but none will be given, but the sign of Jonah'

Sin City

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, such a test is akin to Satan saying, 'Throw yourself of the cliff, for God will send his Angels....'
'Do Not put God to the test'

When God wants to reveal himself in a more explicit way to you, he will.

'A wicked and adulterous generation demand signs, but none will be given, but the sign of Jonah'

So you agree the prayer so in itself is pretty usless as God wont talk back or reply in anyway.

You could argue your more or less talking to the wall

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

There have been clinical trials on the power of prayer for people having heart surgery and religious praying came our worse. If it came out better we'd never hear the end of it.

There have been severial trials that point to a positive correlation between prayer and patient health. (Example). That you weren't aware of them suggests that your statement "If it came out better we'd never hear the end of it" is wrong. What makes your statement amusing is that you are the one telling us that we would never hear the end of it while harping on about the negative correlation found in a particular trial. You then go on to act surprised when somebody hasn't heard of said trial.

Pot meet kettle and all that.

I would suggest that these trails are next to useless whatever results they show. This is because they can't guarantee discrete test groups. For example, there is no way to know that the group supposedly not being prayed for is in reality not receiving any prayer from a family member, a friend, a neighbour or the little girl who asks God to "make the sick people better". Secondly, the don't always tell us what god they are praying to. Finally, the assumption here is that God is some kind of Divine slot machine. All your wishes will be answered if only you have enough people putting prayers into the slot. That isn't Biblical.

JimiTime

Sin City wrote: »

So you agree the prayer so in itself is pretty usless as God wont talk back or reply in anyway.

You could argue your more or less talking to the wall

I'm scratching my head about how you extrapolated that from what I said

There is a difference between asking God for something, and asking him for something while a team of scientists are trying to put him under the microscope. One is asking him, one is trying to test him.

Fanny Cradock

Sin City wrote: »

So you agree the prayer so in itself is pretty usless as God wont talk back or reply in anyway.

You could argue your more or less talking to the wall

Do you agree that you are begging the question?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

In fact, reading Tim's link, what was studied bears little or no relationship at all to what I would consider to be real prayer.

Why do you think they considered it real enough and you don't?

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There have been severial trials that point to a positive correlation between prayer and patient health. (Example). That you weren't aware of them suggests that your statement "If it came out better we'd never hear the end of it" is wrong. What makes your statement amusing is that you are the one telling us that we would never hear the end of it while harping on about the negative correlation found in a particular trial. You then go on to act surprised when somebody hasn't heard of said trial.

Pot meet kettle and all that.

I would suggest that these trails are next to useless whatever results they show. This is because they can't guarantee discrete test groups. For example, there is no way to know that the group supposedly not being prayed for is in reality not receiving any prayer from a family member, a friend, a neighbour or the little girl who asks God to "make the sick people better". Secondly, the don't always tell us what god they are praying to.

I can't read that paper. Can you give a summary of it?

Finally, the assumption here is that God is some kind of Divine slot machine. All your wishes will be answered if only you have enough people putting prayers into the slot. That isn't Biblical.

I think they are trying to establish if there is any objective measureable benefit to prayer.

Let's say there was a super prayer which actually really worked with God, surely it would be good to establish that?

Sarky

Well if it didn't work it couldn't have been real prayer. Obviously.

Northclare

Well Sarky if you don't believe in God your prayers are not much use to you.

Before I get ready for work I say two prayers,and if I don't say those prayers I'll know the difference throughout the day.

I don't affiliate to any religion I'm more a loving God rather than the God who punishes people.

I dismiss the God who will throw me into a furnace for not being up to Biblical standards.

I'm not going to throw my dog into a burning range if he or she ****s all over the place and has a habbit of humping people's legs and cushions.

The God or HP I pray to is more relaxed and forgiving than the guy who burns non Religious people....

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I can't read that paper. Can you give a summary of it?

Google is your friend. I can't give a summary of a meta analysis. But as I've said, all this research comes crashing down on its face at the first hurdle.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think they are trying to establish if there is any objective measureable benefit to prayer.

Let's say there was a super prayer which actually really worked with God, surely it would be good to establish that?

What god are you talking about? Because there is no such super prayer in Christianity.

Slav

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How about a time machine was invented and we could see how accurate the Gospels were?

Leaving aside that backwards time travelling belongs really to science fiction rather than science, the ability to observe the gospel events would still make very little difference if any at all.

For example, a time traveller observes the events exactly as described in the gospels. Would that somehow prove a certain interpretation of those events known as Christianity or theism in general? I don't see how. After all Christians themselves claim that many witnessed the events but not all of them accepted Jesus as Christ.

Similarly, if the observer sees the events not as they described in the gospels it will only invalidate the narrative. At best, if the real events had nothing in common with the gospel story like no resurrection or nobody like Jesus at all, then Muslims or Jews just would say "see? told ya!", so in any case it will become only an inter-religious issue.

Fanny Cradock

On a somewhat similar topic, Unbelievable? are running an Atheist Prayer Experiment. I believe next week they will be discussing it in greater depth.

One one hand I think that this could produce some very positive results. But on the other hand, I have some serious reservations about the very basis of the experiment. Firstly, I wonder if this qualifies as putting "God to the test". Secondly, I wonder if it will be possible to separate those who enter into such an experiment with a closed mind and those who are open to the possibility.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Google is your friend. I can't give a summary of a meta analysis. But as I've said, all this research comes crashing down on its face at the first hurdle.



What god are you talking about? Because there is no such super prayer in Christianity.

Our Father?

Suppose we proove Our Father was more effective than say Hail Mary - empiracall, consistently?

Of suppose you had different denomiations of Christianity (and various other religions) up against each other praying for different outcomes - woudl that not be an empiracle way of saying who might have the correct God?

Tim Robbins

Slav wrote: »

Leaving aside that backwards time travelling belongs really to science fiction rather than science, the ability to observe the gospel events would still make very little difference if any at all.

For example, a time traveller observes the events exactly as described in the gospels. Would that somehow prove a certain interpretation of those events known as Christianity or theism in general? I don't see how. After all Christians themselves claim that many witnessed the events but not all of them accepted Jesus as Christ.

I think many atheists would say the biblical events - that involve something super natural - from the snake talking to Noah's Ark, to 42 kids being punished for slagging a bald man, to Jesus creating fish out of nothing - didn't happen. Many Christians now admit that these super natural events are allegories. But that there are still some super natural events that did actually happen.

If I could see proper evidence of these things it would make me question me my lack of believes. I'd be seriously confused but definetely not as confident as I currently am in my dismissal of Christianity.

Similarly, if the observer sees the events not as they described in the gospels it will only invalidate the narrative. At best, if the real events had nothing in common with the gospel story like no resurrection or nobody like Jesus at all, then Muslims or Jews just would say "see? told ya!", so in any case it will become only an inter-religious issue.

Well yeah you could negate Christianity?

If the time travelling prooved that Bible is chinese whispers with nothing historical accurate- then Christianity has been debunked.

1 down - several thousand to go...

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Our Father?

Suppose we proove Our Father was more effective than say Hail Mary - empiracall, consistently?

Of suppose you had different denomiations of Christianity (and various other religions) up against each other praying for different outcomes - woudl that not be an empiracle way of saying who might have the correct God?

And how is any of that not testing for a Divine Slot Machine? Christians believe that God is a person and as such is an intentional being. In other words, God has his own mind and your desires may not align with his.

Sin City

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm scratching my head about how you extrapolated that from what I said

There is a difference between asking God for something, and asking him for something while a team of scientists are trying to put him under the microscope. One is asking him, one is trying to test him.

if.god won't answer you , how do.you.know he is.listening?

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And how is any of that not testing for a Divine Slot Machine? Christians believe that God is a person and as such is an intentional being. In other words, God has his own mind and your desires may not align with his.

Well maybe time to delete the prayer request thread then.

JimiTime

Sin City wrote: »

if.god won't answer you , how do.you.know he is.listening?

Could you show me where I said God wont answer you?

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well maybe time to delete the prayer request thread then.

Yeah, and maybe you should never ask other people for anything because they aren't always going to say yes.

I'm sorry that you are under the illusion that Christians believe that there is a Divine Slot Machine that will give them everything they ever wanted.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Why do you think they considered it real enough and you don't?

I can't answer as to why they think anything. You cited the study, not me.

Real prayer involves love and concern, not repeating by rote a set of names that mean nothing to you. Not even names, in the case of the study you cited. Just first names and initials.

You can get someone to bow their head and read from a list: "Lord, we pray for Tom B. Paddy M. & Doris K. who we don't know but they're part of a scientific study." Or you can really pray, where you weep with those who are weeping and cry out to God on their behalf.

Sarky

Much more effective, weeping.

PDN

Sarky wrote: »

Much more effective, weeping.

Living up to your name, I see.

Mock away, some of us are not ashamed to love people and pray on their behalf. It does more good than trolling on internet fora.

Sin City

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you show me where I said God wont answer you?

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, such a test is akin to Satan saying, 'Throw yourself of the cliff, for God will send his Angels....'
'Do Not put God to the test'

When God wants to reveal himself in a more explicit way to you, he will.

'A wicked and adulterous generation demand signs, but none will be given, but the sign of Jonah'

This insinuates that God wont answer you intill he wants to
Which would mean that most of the time people pray he isnt answering you

Wiggles88

PDN wrote: »

You can get someone to bow their head and read from a list: "Lord, we pray for Tom B. Paddy M. & Doris K. who we don't know but they're part of a scientific study." Or you can really pray, where you weep with those who are weeping and cry out to God on their behalf.

So god is indifferent until you're on your knees weeping? Seems like god's a bit of a sadist.

Sin City

Wiggles88 wrote: »

So god is indifferent until you're on your knees weeping? Seems like god's a bit of a sadist.

He also is a bit insecure wanting to be praised
Not being able to praise anyone else under punshiment of jdgement and exiled to Hell

PDN

Wiggles88 wrote: »

So god is indifferent until you're on your knees weeping? Seems like god's a bit of a sadist.

Hey, why not totally misrepresent what I'm saying?

What I was pointing out was that there is a difference between reading from a list and actually being emotionally engaged in acting out of love.

But, if you prefer to twist my words for a cheap shot then I guess I can't make you engage in real discussion.

Sin City

PDN wrote: »

Hey, why not totally misrepresent what I'm saying?

What I was pointing out was that there is a difference between reading from a list and actually being emotionally engaged in acting out of love.

But, if you prefer to twist my words for a cheap shot then I guess I can't make you engage in real discussion.

I do agree with you there PDN
There is a difference and if you truly believe in the power of prayer it may have some positive benifits to you

However as was mentioned it may not be some divine action but the result of the placebo effect

Wiggles88

PDN wrote: »

Hey, why not totally misrepresent what I'm saying?

What I was pointing out was that there is a difference between reading from a list and actually being emotionally engaged in acting out of love.

But, if you prefer to twist my words for a cheap shot then I guess I can't make you engage in real discussion.

God sees all and knows all, so knows the people in the study were in need in one way or another so why must god hear a tearful emotional prayer over the more detached prayer said in the study before he will act?