Does Prayer Work?

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 304
#181
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
 intercessory prayer is the only kind that seems answerable, certainly the only kind that would be measurable (I asked for X, X did or didn't happen).

This presumes that "didn't happen" isn't an answer. You are measuring for demand-fulfillment which is not the only operative method of intercessory prayer. Also, if prayer is dependent on (for example) the merits of the asker or sincerity of the prayer, to avoid questions of an atheist subverting the process, then the lack of positive response might be a reflection on the flaw in the prayers, not the ineffectiveness of a comparatively sincerely process.

Otherwise, separated from any religious context, what you are testing is a random person yelling at the sky "gimme a hundred bucks, now! Small bills. Non-sequential." And if Mr. Moneybag doesn't materialize then "prayer" is deemed "not working." But that demand isn't prayer.

Once you call it "prayer" it can't be just "request" even if the nature of the prayer includes request. It still has to qualify as prayer, judged within the religious context which generates that definition.


#182
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
This presumes that "didn't happen" isn't an answer.

Wouldn't this not happening, regardless of if it's an answer or not, lead to the conclusion "does not appear to effect the outcome in the real world"? Yes, I'm measuring for specifically "does the prayer affect the outcome," Not all religions believe the prayer is dependent on the merits of the prayerful (though this is why you'd pick children to do the prayers, because they're less corrupt, and the puppy, because those prayers would be less self serving and more sincere. But there are versions of Christianity that can't agree on who gets their prayers answered or why, or if they constitute a test of god or they don't. 

 separated from any religious context, 
This isn't separated from ANY religious context, it's just not specific to any single religion. 

It still has to qualify as prayer, judged within the religious context which generates that definition.
Could not theologians of some stripe or other validate the prayer's content prior to issuing it to the children? So in other words if the experiment was laid out so that the Hindu head theologian looks at the prayer you want to use in your experiment and says "Yes, this prayer as I see it is valid prayer," then you give said prayer to the child of that faith in the experiment?

Surely we can put all sorts of internal variables into it, but in the end, every result studied so far has yielded the same thing: inconclusive results at best. I'm not in any way saying you cannot confirm intercessory prayer as effective, but there's no reason to say it cannot be studied. 
#183
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Wouldn't this not happening, regardless of if it's an answer or not, lead to the conclusion "does not appear to effect the outcome in the real world"? Yes, I'm measuring for specifically "does the prayer affect the outcome,"
I don't think it does unless you want to limit prayer's ability to change the course of presumed events. OK, then let's change the scenario so I can test a bit more:
my fish is sick. The doctors say he is going to die. I pray to god to heal him.
a. He doesn't die for a year. Were the doctors all wrong or did god change things?
b. He dies three days later. When was he going to die? Are those three days evidence of effective prayer-request?
c. He dies as soon as I utter the final word or my request. Is that a coincidence or is that a "no" which shows that the communicative mode of the prayer "works" even though the request is denied? What is "working"? Is it just the selfish "getting what you want"? By that logic "asking parents about going to an x-rated movie" can be measured to "not work" because they, in their role as parent, wisely say "no" very quickly. The prayer did the job of prayer, that is communicating with the authority.

What was the outcome going to be so I can measure the change? Or are we also limiting it to very precise and specific language that lays out a demand, a time line, a scope etc? The more we have to limit what kind of "prayer" we are talking about, the less useful any non-generalizable result will be.

Not all religions believe the prayer is dependent on the merits of the prayerful (though this is why you'd pick children to do the prayers, because they're less corrupt, and the puppy, because those prayers would be less self serving and more sincere. But there are versions of Christianity that can't agree on who gets their prayers answered or why, or if they constitute a test of god or they don't. 
If different religions don't agree on the variables which define what prayer is and how it works, who sets the parameters for a test of its efficacy? How can it exist outside of all religions and generate a result that will be useful in understanding prayer within the scope of one religion or another?

This isn't separated from ANY religious context, it's just not specific to any single religion. 
but if isn't specific to any single religion then it has no parameters that can be used other than the most generic "did it effect the specific and limited request" and that can't be useful within any religious context.


Could not theologians of some stripe or other validate the prayer's content prior to issuing it to the children? So in other words if the experiment was laid out so that the Hindu head theologian looks at the prayer you want to use in your experiment and says "Yes, this prayer as I see it is valid prayer," then you give said prayer to the child of that faith in the experiment?
I would suggest not. That theologian (though, admittedly, I can't speak for Hindu thinking), if he is worth his salt, would also have to look at how the prayer was delivered, and whether the nature of the request is contextually even useful. Once it moves into the context of any religious structure, will also have to conform to variables besides wording.

Surely we can put all sorts of internal variables into it, but in the end, every result studied so far has yielded the same thing: inconclusive results at best. I'm not in any way saying you cannot confirm intercessory prayer as effective, but there's no reason to say it cannot be studied. 

I see inconclusive results at best as cause to abandon studying it.

#184
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
I see inconclusive results at best as cause to abandon studying it.

This is a dangerous approach: you'd never arrive at any medical treatment innovation if you abandoned anything whose initial results were "inconclusive." That word itself stems from "not really concluded." That means keep going, as it "you're not done." The most complicated conclusions go through many, many, many experiments with inconclusive results before finding a solution. 

If different religions don't agree on the variables which define what prayer is and how it works, who sets the parameters for a test of its efficacy?
Me: the dog lives or dies. If the dog lives, I will include prayer as the leading probability as the factor that made the change in the natural order of events. I'm not trying to define which religion made the change yet. 

I don't think it does unless you want to limit prayer's ability to change the course of presumed events. OK, then let's change the scenario so I can test a bit more:
my fish is sick. The doctors say he is going to die. I pray to god to heal him.
The reason I don't do the experimen this way is exactly what you lay out: you can't tell what would have happened naturally, particularly with illness. It's why you need a healthy, living puppy who's not close to death, then you can make a better conclusion. You're not limiting "what kind of "prayer" we are talking about, the less useful any non-generalizable result will be." You're just taking a short term result (a dog would drown inside of ten minutes) that can be measured conclusively. This sort of parameter is the only way to test that the prayer effects the outcome, you have to rule out anything that could happen on its own (see sealable bag, controlled pool with no animal, rock, or diver in it, no intervention, etc). 

but if isn't specific to any single religion then it has no parameters that can be used other than the most generic "did it effect the specific and limited request" and that can't be useful within any religious context.
That's exactly what I'm aiming to measure: did it affect the outcome. If it did, then you'd have to design different experiments to figure out which religion did it, or if it was something else (group telepathic powers, etc). 
#185
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
This is a dangerous approach: you'd never arrive at any medical treatment innovation if you abandoned anything whose initial results were "inconclusive." That word itself stems from "not really concluded." That means keep going, as it "you're not done." The most complicated conclusions go through many, many, many experiments with inconclusive results before finding a solution. 

When it comes to measuring an effect of something in a faith based system? I don't see it as dangerous at all. I don't think of medical treatments and petitioning an infinite, divine and inscrutable power in the same, measurable way.

Me: the dog lives or dies. If the dog lives, I will include prayer as the leading probability as the factor that made the change in the natural order of events. I'm not trying to define which religion made the change yet.
OK then. That will fail once it is used in any context other than your own understanding. What good is the conclusion you reach if it is so limited?

This sort of parameter is the only way to test that the prayer effects the outcome
Well, if ny affecting (or effecting) the outcome, you only want to measure "getting the result you ask for." You see, at the same time that one child is asking that the puppy be saved, another is praying that the puppy die because he has a hatred of puppies. He gets what he asks for. Prayer works. Or you would say that the "natural order" would be that the dog dies. But we can't know that a good samaritan wouldn't have jumped in to save the dog, or the current would have pushed the bag to the shore. While we can guess statistically, since we can't know, we can't be sure what effect the prayer has. To affect outcome requires definitive knowledge of what the outcome was going to be (among other things).

I still can't see how you can assess petitions qua prayer if you take them out of a context that defines and establishes rules for prayer. Is there a generic, religion-free concept of prayer? If, by definition, prayer begs an idea of the object of prayer, then it invokes all the rules and regulations of prayer according to that authority-object. I don't see value in asking "does shouting at the sky change the lottery numbers?" and then "if it does, I'll try to figure out how god did it, or which god did it".
#186
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
 What good is the conclusion you reach if it is so limited?

It's good because it says "What's the next step in studying why the prayer worked". That's all we're looking for: did the application of intercessory prayer have an effect on the outcome? It doesn't draw any conclusion beyond that because that's not how it's designed. Subsequent experiments are required. 

 But we can't know that a good samaritan wouldn't have jumped in to save the dog, or the current would have pushed the bag to the shore. 
You can know that no one did when youuse the controlled "pool" environment I changed it to, in an effort to rule out more external influencing factors like this, like a fish chewing through the bag, like a rock tearing the bag. 

I still can't see how you can assess petitions qua prayer if you take them out of a context that defines and establishes rules for prayer. Is there a generic, religion-free concept of prayer? If, by definition, prayer begs an idea of the object of prayer, then it invokes all the rules and regulations of prayer according to that authority-object.
I'm not taking the prayers out of religious context, the adherents are using the religious context on their own. I can't tell which object of the prayer made a difference under this experiment, but again, that's not what I'm testing for. I'm testing does any sort of intercessory prayer work on a real world outcome. You're doing sort of the same thing as the other guy, it seems like you're adding stuff to the experiment. 
#187
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
You're doing sort of the same thing as the other guy, it seems like you're adding stuff to the experiment. 
No, I'm saying that by definition, prayer requires the other stuff. Otherwise, it is "demand of no one in particular" and you aren't testing prayer.
#188
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
But it's not MY demand of no one in particular: the Muslim is praying to his god, the Chrisitan to his god, the Hindu to his god, etc.... it's specific to the adherents. 
#189
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
But it's not MY demand of no one in particular: the Muslim is praying to his god, the Chrisitan to his god, the Hindu to his god, etc.... it's specific to the adherents. 
So then you aren't testing prayer. You want to test Muslim prayer (or Christian prayer) and all the other stuff is automatically included.

I wonder if we can test "does surgery work" simply by throwing a knife at no one in particular and seeing if he lives. (joking, but the image is fun)
#190
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
This is why you don't test for a specific religious understanding of it at first, you test a variety of intercessory prayers all at once. I'm not sure why you think it's narrow and limted: intercessory prayer is the only kind that seems answerable, certainly the only kind that would be measurable

It's narrow and limited taking into account many variables, since this world is ruled by cause and effect that is one variable, not everything can be reversed due to that law. Taking into consideration my post number 99 that's another variable, not every person is capable of effective prayer. Taking into account that prayer is not limited to just asking God for stuff, a study on intercessory prayer might discourage one from such a habit. A study like the ones shown in this thread are limiting in that they may discourage the observer from ceasing to pray when their may be in fact some advantages to praying and not just walking around trying to reverse sickly peoples ailments.

To alter the physical world one has to have their shit together (this should be obvious, great responsibility is given to those who know how to handle such responsibility, like you would never want to give a child a magic wand), they really need to have a layer of depth to them that is rare in this world not everyone is going to be able to do such things that's a fact. Especially in light of what I said about faith being an individual element, even though we are talking about prayer specifically it's actually faith that empowers prayer if we're discussing changing or altering the physical world. Faith is the mechanism that triggers a successful prayer, and it's not God that does that it is the individual meaning even though it's not their own power they have to be capable of channeling that power. I'm not making crap up read the Gospels, Jesus talks about this specifically in more than one passage and it's pretty clear. Remember when the disciples came running to Jesus complaining their prayers were not working? He immediately pointed them back towards their own faith.

So it is limited mainly for the one's observing the study (unbelievers), they are looking for something constant to prove prayer is either effective or worth doing at all when the study itself is not really capable, it's not able to capture all the angles I just went over.

Why isn't prayer "qualified" to be tested? I'm trying to think of another proposition wherein there should be measurable outcome, but doesn't qualify for testing. Some people think prayer substitutes for medical attention, shouldn't that be something we test? What sort of variables are you talking about sepcifically? PLease don't say the atheist saboteur.

It may be qualified to be tested if one keeps in mind that it will be inconsistent lol, that in and of itself makes the testing somewhat worthless. Prayer is not really a good thing to be tested in such a fashion, because there are so many variables that make it eluding. It's the individual that masters prayer, and in that it can never be universally tested.

If one really wants to understand the full scope of prayer they should be aware that prayer is like a muscle or like weight lifting or anything that you want to build up or strengthen. You can't just start praying and expect to go out and alter the course of the world that's not a mature way of approaching the subject. I would say most people aren't even at the level where they could ever do that to begin with, it's very rare you see that happen. Only a real Master can manipulate the physical elements and TBH you might not ever be able to find a person like that because they would most likely be killed, Jesus was killed and it was because of his power if you pay close attention to the Gospels. The world, this world in specific is not ready for that kind of reality in a way where such an individual could be made public.

Another thing to consider is that prayer is for the individual and their personal spiritual relationship not necessarily for changing the course of world events. It is their personal connection to God and their channel for receiving that which transcends the physical sense perceptions. To avoid prayer because of some silly study would be very unfortunate.

#191
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
So then you aren't testing prayer. You want to test Muslim prayer (or Christian prayer) and all the other stuff is automatically included.

How is asking five people to pray to five different deities for a single specified outcome that's outside the natural order of events, seeing that the outcome happened, not testing intercessory prayer? If we get an positive result, then we can start testing specific religions. What am I missing?
#192
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Let's move the test you suggest to different subjects.

Let's say we have a woman at the bar of a club. We are going to send in 10 guys to use a pick-up line on her to see if we get any results. Is that a reasonable test?

Here is what your test is like:
Q: Does the woman like guys?
You don't care, you're just testing pick-up lines.
Q: What body type is the woman attracted to?
You don't care, you're just testing pick-up lines.
Q: Is the woman at the bar working there because she cannot fraternize with customers if she is working.
You don't care, you're just testing pick-up lines.
Q: Does the woman speak the language of the guys trying to pick her up?
You don't care, you're just testing pick-up lines.

Now, a tall Chinese guy successfully picks her up. Is this because his pick-up line was successful, or she was simply attracted to Oriental men?

Maybe she is attracted to short dark men, but the short dark fella didn't smell nice.

Questioning the woman later on why she responded to the Chinese guy, she replies, "he seemed to be rich."

What has your test told you about pick-up lines? Nothing useful. The test is bogus.

The thing I think you're not getting is that you're trying to test a person, not a thing. And no matter how you deny it, the subject will know He's is being tested and that will immediately invalidate the test.

Its like you think God is an algorithm or a robot. That anyone can just yell out any petition to Him and he must act.

I still say there is a reason you don't see experiments like what you described. No one would spend money and time on an experiment that could give no valid and usable results. Why would they?

And any experiment like this would be laughed out of scientific circles as illiterate nonsense.
#193
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Let's say we have a woman at the bar of a club. We are going to send in 10 guys to use a pick-up line on her to see if we get any results. Is that a reasonable test?
It depnds what you're testing, are you testing the efficacy of pickup lines? How are you defining effective? How are you controlling the experiment? In order for it to be analogous to my test, you'd have to have the ten different guys test ten different women with the same pickup line each time If none of the women respond to any of the pickup lines, your results are "these pickup lines appear ineffective and further testing may be warranted."  



What has your test told you about pick-up lines? Nothing useful. The test is bogus.
I agree, because your experiment is poorly designed. It's not really like mine at all, though, because you're testing one woman. In order to be sort of like mine, you'd have to test ten different women with ten different men and ten different pickup lines, then if whatever you define as "success" happens, you have to study WHY it was successful. You'd repeat the experiment over and over. To clarify for my test, five people pray to five different gods, a desired outcome for which they all prayed is achieved. Conclusion: intercessory prayer seems effective. Next step: figure out which one. The first experiment is simple, the next experiment is less so. 


Its like you think God is an algorithm or a robot. That anyone can just yell out any petition to Him and he must act.

Which of the five gods are you referring to? And why that one?

    I still say there is a reason you don't see experiments like what you described.
    Except you do, I cited one that's been peer reviewed, you ignored it. 
    #194
    rosends
    rosends's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 806
    3
    2
    6
    rosends's avatar
    rosends
    3
    2
    6
    -->
    @ludofl3x
    How is asking five people to pray to five different deities for a single specified outcome that's outside the natural order of events, seeing that the outcome happened, not testing intercessory prayer? If we get an positive result, then we can start testing specific religions. What am I missing?

    The moment you ask for the individuals to invoke the concept of prayer within each of those religious systems, you have to account for the entire context of religious prayer. Determining success by measuring against a standard ("change") which is not part of those 5 systems gives you a result which is useless.

    Let's take an actual case:

    You have your puppy situation and ask a Jew to pray. You have immediately called forth the Jewish concept of prayer. There is nothing in Judaism which is purely petitionary so what you are asking for is already flawed.
    You have to look at all the variables about the person, the language of the prayer and the Jewish rules regarding "what we are allowed to ask for". Plus, you have to consider the Jewish concept of "no is an answer that signals success of prayer."

    You can't start in a system but judge ignoring the variables of that system.

    If I have 10 religions, I have to balance 10 different sets of variables. Getting a dead puppy after 10 sets of prayers might not reflect at all on some notion of generic prayer because none of the actual prayer was generic.
    #195
    BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas's avatar
    Debates: 2
    Posts: 2,140
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas's avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    3
    3
    7
    -->
    @rosends



    Rosey,

    YOUR MISGUIDED QUOTE: "You have your puppy situation and ask a Jew to pray. You have immediately called forth the Jewish concept of prayer."

    Yes, the Jewish concept of prayer is praying to the brutal serial killer Yahweh God for their wants, period.  Conversely, the TRUE Christian is praying to Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, and the Muslim is praying to Allah, which is the same God as Yahweh and Jesus because the impetus of these Gods are all through Abraham.  

    Since all of these Gods are the same God, and since all of these Gods posit DIFFERENT and CONTRADICTING renditions of how each God says to pray to their swallowers, whoops, I mean "followers," then  which one takes precedence?

    Rosends, under the above circumstances, and you as a Jew, where do you get the authority to preach to Christians in how to pray?


    .
    #196
    ludofl3x
    ludofl3x's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,071
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x's avatar
    ludofl3x
    3
    2
    2
    Getting a dead puppy after 10 sets of prayers might not reflect at all on some notion of generic prayer because none of the actual prayer was generic.

    Would ten dead puppies mean "does not appear an effective method of affecting real world outcomes" is a reasonable conclusion? Edit: I should clarify, you can do this with 5 adherents or with 5000, theoretically. 

    There is nothing in Judaism which is purely petitionary so what you are asking for is already flawed.
    Could we not rule this out via pre-experiment research? If they don't do intercessory prayer then why would I include them in my intercessory prayer experiment?

    You can't start in a system but judge ignoring the variables of that system.
    I don't need to know the variables of the religious system: the adherents do. Why would the observer need to know? Again, super simple experiment: have religious kids pray for a puppy not to die under controlled circumstances in which it is OTHERWISE SURE the puppy would die. If the puppy isn't dead, then prayer seems effective. Why does the observer need to know anything about Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses to determine that the puppy is alive?  
    #197
    ethang5
    ethang5's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 5,875
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5's avatar
    ethang5
    3
    3
    6
    -->
    @ludofl3x
    ...then if whatever you define as "success" happens,
    But you are unable to define anything as "success" unless you simply slap the word "success" on some ad-hoc thing.

    ...you have to study WHY it was successful
    And how would you do that with God? Send Him a questionnaire?

    If none of the women respond to any of the pickup lines, your results are "these pickup lines appear ineffective and further testing may be warranted."
    But the pickup lines may not be ineffective! Your test has told you nothing. And even if a guy successfully picks up a woman, it may not be the pick-up line at all. It may be some other factor.

    Regardless of the results, successful pick-up or not) no conclusion you draw from such an experiment will be scientifically  valid.

    I cited one that's been peer reviewed, you ignored it.
    Cite the post #.

    Its like you think God is an algorithm or a robot. That anyone can just yell out any petition to Him and he must act.

    Which of the five gods are you referring to?
    There is only one God.

    And why that one?
    As there is only one, that is the only one I could refer to.

    Either way, God is not an algorithm or a robot.

    Just substituting a human father in place of God in your experiment will immediately show your experiments failings.
    #198
    rosends
    rosends's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 806
    3
    2
    6
    rosends's avatar
    rosends
    3
    2
    6
    -->
    @ludofl3x
    Would ten dead puppies mean "does not appear an effective method of affecting real world outcomes" is a reasonable conclusion? 

    Not to someone who is familiar with religious notions of prayer. In each system, there could be plenty of variables which explain why the prayer could not change real world outcomes. That doesn't reflect on the efficacy of prayer within the system, just this particular iteration of it.

    Could we not rule this out via pre-experiment research? If they don't do intercessory prayer then why would I include them in my intercessory prayer experiment?
    Who says they don't do intercessory prayer? They just do it in a different way (I wrote "There is nothing in Judaism which is purely petitionary"). So once you include the other elements of prayer, you are introducing the other limitations and expectations. Trying to judge, then, only the intercessory part is flawed.

    I don't need to know the variables of the religious system: the adherents do. Why would the observer need to know? Again, super simple experiment: have religious kids pray for a puppy not to die under controlled circumstances in which it is OTHERWISE SURE the puppy would die. If the puppy isn't dead, then prayer seems effective. Why does the observer need to know anything about Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses to determine that the puppy is alive?  
    Sure, you don't need to, but how can you know that the prayer is done properly within the context of each religion then? The person you chose doesn't do it right, or the thing you want prayed for isn't within the scope of that religion's vision of prayer, or the result was actually the lengenthing of the lifespan by a small amount. The experiment you devise is doomed to be inconclusive. Feel free to go ahead with it, but don't expect the (lack of) results to be useful for anyone but you.
    #199
    EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,869
    3
    3
    5
    EtrnlVw's avatar
    EtrnlVw
    3
    3
    5
    You guys have to use your noggins and realize what it is you're inquiring about and the outcome and full consequences of this. Lets say just for fun that prayer was tested and in this scenario it was 100% effective. Let's say even that we found a person who could pray for anything and it always worked..... now what are repercussions of this?
    If prayer always worked would anyone ever die? could anyone ever remain sick? go poor? be homeless? or have any unfortunate events to learn from? or gain experience through hardship or their mistakes in life? how far could 100% effective prayer actually go? what are the limits or boundaries for this? would the world turn into a perfect utopia with very shallow people and baby like mentalities where all we had to do was pray and wahlah! no hardship involved!
    But this world and this level of existence is also a testing ground, an area of creation where the soul is tempered and matured. This world is not meant to be perfect and we all have to die to get to the next place. But where would 100% effective prayer ever end?
    What if such a person was found that whatever he prayed for was successful, would this actually be a good thing for the world or even the individual or a bad thing?
    What if it was made public that this person could pray and have 100% success rate and now the world suddenly knew this was a legit thing. Would this individual be bombarded? what if this person started getting requests and inquires all over the world how do you think that would end? now suddenly everyone wants their prayers and desires answered and what if they were unable to take no for an answer? how far would this go, now the president wants his wife healed from cancer, or his kid raised from the dead after a car accident and no is not an acceptable answer. Now if unanswered this individual could be secretly thrown in jail until a satisfactory action is taken. Or the country is losing a war and the leaders all expect this individual to make everything right....a constant assault and harassment from all parts of the country all demanding they get their wishes fulfilled.
    Some maniac demands a request and is denied and now he plots to murder the individual because he doesn't get what he wants. A president from another country catches wind there is a person who can pray with 100% success rate and now wants a miracle...if he doesn't get his miracle he threatens the country with an attack. Your best friend wants you to do this and that, suddenly your an enemy to everyone around you because you're able to pray and change outcomes but somethings need to take their course but your targeted because your prayers are successful...your own wife never wants her father to die, doesn't want her kids to be sick, doesn't want her car to break down, doesn't want this and that and now she going to divorce your arse because you didn't make everything right....
    I mean do you guys really think intercessory prayers should be tested and work 100%? can anyone give me a reason why this would be a good thing or a logical solution? how would 100% effective prayer even work in a real world, what would be the limits to such a reality? where would it ever end, what purpose could it serve?
    Would a hospital even need to exist? would the word tragedy even have any real meaning? would cause and effect cease to exist? what would this world even be like if everyone prayed and it was successful?
    If it was 100% effective would anyone ever face death or consequences for their own actions? what if you could wave a magic wand over every negative outcome and make right do you think this is a good thing? have you considered all the repercussions of this?? maybe then what I have to say within this thread has more weight than what you thought.. maybe think more about what it is you are asking. Do you really want prayer to work with 100% success? or even say 90% or 80%? can you give me a percentage of how much prayer should work and how that would play out in the real world? just give me a percentage and why you think it should be that way.

    #200
    ludofl3x
    ludofl3x's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,071
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x's avatar
    ludofl3x
    3
    2
    2
    -->
    @ethang5
    Just substituting a human father in place of God in your experiment will immediately show your experiments failings.

    Pray to a human father? Why? Do you mean ask the human dad to rescue the puppy? How's that even remotely the same proposition? Everyone can verify the presence of a specific dad immediately and you can be sure the prayer is heard and responded to either negatively or positively. 


    But you are unable to define anything as "success" unless you simply slap the word "success" on some ad-hoc thing.
    "Success" in my experiment is "dog lives." I can't define it for your experiment, you didn'r do so either. 

    There is only one God.
    I think we found the problem with your understanding of the experiment.  You're only looking for one god. That's not very scientific. 

    Cite the post #.
    IT's like four pages ago. Here's the link I posted. 

    #201
    fauxlaw
    fauxlaw's avatar
    Debates: 77
    Posts: 3,565
    4
    7
    10
    fauxlaw's avatar
    fauxlaw
    4
    7
    10
    If practiced properly, with a sincere and humble heart, having real intent with a desire to know the truth, with faith in Christ, avoiding doubt, fence-sitting, and cynicism, yes, prayer is effective by the working of faith that God can reveal, and heal, comfort, and clarify, redeem and restore, worlds without end.
    #202
    ethang5
    ethang5's avatar
    Debates: 1
    Posts: 5,875
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5's avatar
    ethang5
    3
    3
    6
    -->
    @ludofl3x
    Pray to a human father? Why? Do you mean ask the human dad to rescue the puppy?
    No. Just have kids ask their father for things they want and see if any of the requests are "successful".

    Everyone can verify the presence of a specific dad immediately...
    But you aren't testing the dad remember, you're only testing the requests.

    ...and you can be sure the prayer is heard and responded to either negatively or positively.
    How? The dad may ignore some requests, misunderstand some, and reject some as inappropriate.

    "Success" in my experiment is "dog lives."
    That is bogus because the dog living is not necessarily God answering.

    I think we found the problem with your understanding of the experiment.  You're only looking for one god. That's not very scientific.
    The number of Gods is immaterial. The problem is in the methodology of your experiment, not the subject of your experiment. Your experiment gives no valid data of the efficacy of prayer.

    The study you linked doesn't test the efficacy of prayer. It tests whether people who know they are being prayed for, suffer fewer complications due to the knowledge of being prayed for.

    An efficacy test would not allow the patients to know they were being prayed for. Basically this study was testing whether knowing someone cared for them made a difference to their health.

    The comments in your link back up my claims.


    Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. 
    #203
    BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas's avatar
    Debates: 2
    Posts: 2,140
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas's avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    3
    3
    7
    -->
    @fauxlaw


    .
    faux law,

    YOUR INSIDIOUS QUOTE: "If practiced properly, with a sincere and humble heart, having real intent with a desire to know the truth, with faith in Christ, avoiding doubt, fence-sitting, and cynicism, yes, prayer is effective by the working of faith that God can reveal, and heal, comfort, and clarify, redeem and restore, worlds without end."

    YES, if you practice the lack of prayer, then you won't slap Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, in the face with your gobbledygook comments above!!!  Are you calling the inspired word of Jesus below a LIE?  Simply put, no need for prayer because Jesus already knows what you need!

    "Do not be like them, for your father knows what you need before you ask Him." (Matthew 6:8)


    If you are not too embarrassed to tell us, like many pseudo-christians within this forum are silent upon, what DIVISION of Christianity do you follow?




    .

    #204
    EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,869
    3
    3
    5
    EtrnlVw's avatar
    EtrnlVw
    3
    3
    5
    -->
    @ludofl3x
    I'm really curious now, since you're one of the more frequent posters in this thread and Salixes is nothing short of a bonehead, can you give me an idea of an acceptable ratio of what it is you would LIKE to see in a prayer study after reading post #199? could you come up with a satisfactory percentage of answered prayers that would make you happy? or even believe that prayers work or should work and how do you think it should play out in a real world scenario assuming they do? in a nutshell what is it you are looking for in a prayer experiment and what impact would this have on the world as we know it should it be an effective study?
    I'm trying to understand what it is you are arguing for or against and what it means. And have you considered all the repercussions...

    #205
    BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas's avatar
    Debates: 2
    Posts: 2,140
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas's avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    3
    3
    7
    -->
    @ludofl3x



    .


    ludofl3x,

    When Ethang5 posits that there is only one God, and shows disrespect by not actually naming said God amongst the many Gods within the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages, then one way to force his biblical ignorance to come to light, is to just use the God named "Allah" as the one God because this god is also relative to being from Abraham, like Jesus as God incarnate was  within the Bible.

    When you do this act, is when the comedy of apologetics comes to the forefront and ol' ethang5 turns himself into a pretzel before our eyes! Ethang5 under this circumstance, is better than watching any comedy skit on Saturday Night Live! LOL!!!


    .


    #206
    fauxlaw
    fauxlaw's avatar
    Debates: 77
    Posts: 3,565
    4
    7
    10
    fauxlaw's avatar
    fauxlaw
    4
    7
    10
    -->
    @BrotherDThomas
    Insidious? Gobbledygook? Insult the Christ? And assume that the only purpose of prayer is supplication, and demonstrate it by quoting Matthew? Is this how you always preface a question? Thanks for encouraging an answer!
    As it happens, clearly, my statement encourages humility in prayer, not skeptic insidiocy. It was plain English, not jabberwocky. Jesus Christ is the living Son of God. Have a care to be respectful, even if you do not agree. And Matthew is merely saying that God is already aware of our needs, but is still respectful of a child-like request, acknowledging that we know what we need. My preference, however, is not to always ask, but spend more time and effort in gratitude to Him. "If" is the most useless word in any language because it begins by acknowledging that which is currently not true. Some beginning of a logical argument. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
    #207
    fauxlaw
    fauxlaw's avatar
    Debates: 77
    Posts: 3,565
    4
    7
    10
    fauxlaw's avatar
    fauxlaw
    4
    7
    10
    -->
    @EtrnlVw
    Relative to your post #199, there is no reason why prayer cannot be 100% effective, but there are conditions. First, study and contemplation must precede prayer in oder to have greater understanding of God's will. Hence, the offer Christ made in Gethsemane [Matt.26: 42] "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." Second, having faith in Christ must precede prayer as it is through him that prayer is acknowledged and answered. If we pray something might happen by our supplication, something might be done about it. Third, we should spend more prayer time in gratitude than in supplication. Fourth, we must proceed by acting on what is received by prayer. When advice is taken, and acted upon, the Giver is more likely to respond in kind again.
    #208
    EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,869
    3
    3
    5
    EtrnlVw's avatar
    EtrnlVw
    3
    3
    5
    -->
    @fauxlaw
    A lot of that is relative to what I wrote in post #190, I agree. There are conditions for effective prayer. That's why it's not 100% effective in studies. 
    #209
    EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,869
    3
    3
    5
    EtrnlVw's avatar
    EtrnlVw
    3
    3
    5
    -->
    @fauxlaw
    If there were no conditions and prayer were 100% effective then you would have a lot of chaos, that's why I wrote post 199. That was the point behind that post, to question what ends would that entail in the world we live in. We are meant to learn from hardship, so we can't always pray our way out of uncomfortable situations, whatever the situation may be. 

    #210
    BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas's avatar
    Debates: 2
    Posts: 2,140
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas's avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    3
    3
    7
    -->
    @fauxlaw



    .
    faux law,

    Oh for Christ's sake, you are a MORMON. :(  It is no wonder in why you slap the TRUE Jesus in the face!  Yes, as seen by your comical post #201, you are used to gobbledygook because you read from the Satanic Book of Mormon, and if this isn't ungodly enough, you accept the criminal Joseph Smith as leader of your Satanic faith!

    Within the many comical and ungodly memes of Mormonism, what color of "secret underwear" are you wearing today to remind you of Jesus? Have you any pictures of the 6' men living on the Moon? Listen, I have an orange bridge for sale in San Francisco, and it's a real money maker, therefore are you interested in its purchase? I'll give you great terms with a low interest rate to get you in this once in-a-life-time purchase, okay? LOL!!!


    P.T. Barnum's alleged statement of "a sucker is born every minute" is true when dealing with a Mormon like you, and Jesus upholds this action when His inspired words state: "I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."  (Romans 16:17)


    Here, let me bring forth the passage again that you are having a very hard time in understanding, to wit: "Do not be like them, for your father knows what you need before you ask Him." (Matthew 6:8)  This passage states with specificity that Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, says He knows in what you need, therefore there is no need to slap Him in the face by reminding an omniscient God of your requests! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE PREMISE YET?  


    .