(October 10, 2019 at 11:45 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(October 10, 2019 at 11:16 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: If it was a testable, verifiable phenomenon that spontaneous remission occurred significantly more frequently during or as a result of prayer, we should look at some powerful psychosomatic (natural) cause, like perhaps another order of magnitude in the placebo effect. If something is observably repeatable within the order of empirical phenomena such that you can form an inductive conclusion from predictable data, that makes it less likely to be a miracle, not more likely.

Yes, it's not an "end-all, be-all" procedure but such observations could still put us on a good starting point for seriously considering the plausibility of miracles. We would have to go beyond just this basic experiment to establish the reality of miracles of course (say different controls, e.g. "praying to rocks").

But more importantly, this seems a concession on your part of the difficulty of attaining conclusive evidence for miracles.

ETA: Nevertheless, I disagree that repeatability of observations means they can't [likely] be supernatural/divine.

We seem to be using different semantics again. Miracles are extraordinary events; if it is an event that you can set controls for in an experiment, then you are establishing an order to it. If it's an observable, predictable order of things, that fits neatly within naturalism — unless you're locking down naturalism to (reductive) physical materialism.

(October 11, 2019 at 12:01 am)Inqwizitor Wrote: Miracles are extraordinary events

Miracles are non-events. They don't exist.

(October 11, 2019 at 12:01 am)Inqwizitor Wrote: if it is an event that you can set controls for in an experiment, then you are establishing an order to it. If it's an observable, predictable order of things, that fits neatly within naturalism

Wow, thanks for clearing that up. With all those holy texts and big books written by God one could easily get an impression that God had some sort of a contract with people to help them in exchange for faith, but now I see it's all just random fun for God.

(October 11, 2019 at 12:01 am)Inqwizitor Wrote:

(October 10, 2019 at 11:45 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Yes, it's not an "end-all, be-all" procedure but such observations could still put us on a good starting point for seriously considering the plausibility of miracles. We would have to go beyond just this basic experiment to establish the reality of miracles of course (say different controls, e.g. "praying to rocks").

But more importantly, this seems a concession on your part of the difficulty of attaining conclusive evidence for miracles.

ETA: Nevertheless, I disagree that repeatability of observations means they can't [likely] be supernatural/divine.

We seem to be using different semantics again. Miracles are extraordinary events; if it is an event that you can set controls for in an experiment, then you are establishing an order to it. If it's an observable, predictable order of things, that fits neatly within naturalism — unless you're locking down naturalism to (reductive) physical materialism.

This to me sounds like you're saying that if the supernatural can be invoked, it can't be supernatural. I'm sorry but I don't see why one can't assume some form of order to the supernatural, especially if we wish to define supernatural in the sense that we can conceive of a means of establishing some form of evidence for it. Otherwise, it seems supernaturalism by definition is not evident.

I'm happy to go with that, but then why try to argue for evidence for supernaturalism?

Going back to Marion Carroll's experience, even if we were to put aside experimentation and repeatability of observations as a means for evidence for the supernatural and just accept singular cases as evidence for a miracle, the problem is that personal experiences aren't objective assessments of what happened. When we're talking about experiences such as Marion's case, we're talking about how she perceives, interprets, recalls the event, and Marion (like any other human being) is prone to errors in memory and attention regarding some important details pertaining to what happened. So she may have misinterpreted, misattributed, misremembered, and all in light of what she already believes and biased by her already existent worldview. And unless we have a sufficient number of very similar cases that confirm her interpretation (which you reckon can never be so), we shouldn't jump the gun and conclude it was a miracle.

(October 11, 2019 at 1:26 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Wow, thanks for clearing that up. With all those holy texts and big books written by God one could easily get an impression that God had some sort of a contract with people to help them in exchange for faith, but now I see it's all just random fun for God.

And that's just the point, the truth is once a person has accepted the bible as the inspired word of of god, they are then justified (within that belief) to expect not to starve, to have clothing, and to be healed. Not only that, but their supposed god told them to pray for these things told them not to worry but seek first the kingdom of god and all these things would be added to them.

Their god then goes to great lengths to give an example of a corrupt judge who in the and gives in and gives the widow what she wants, and then goes on to say how much better god is, and how god will answer prayer.

The problem being it does not work, and this was becoming apparent to the church, so up sprang, unworthiness, and saying that god always answers prayer, but it's either, Yes, No, wait, Which of course is exactly the same as random chance. They then say that god uses other people to provide for them (except that does not work either) and so shift the burden from god, who made the promise to mankind, who did not make the promise, all the while skirting round the issue that god should have known that.

While the word apologetics does not mean to apologise (in fact the opposite) , it may as well do, there's a good reason why people get the word mixed up.

(October 10, 2019 at 11:16 pm)Inqwizitor Wrote: If it was a testable, verifiable phenomenon that spontaneous remission occurred significantly more frequently during or as a result of prayer, we should look at some powerful psychosomatic (natural) cause, like perhaps another order of magnitude in the placebo effect. If something is observably repeatable within the order of empirical phenomena such that you can form an inductive conclusion from predictable data, that makes it less likely to be a miracle, not more likely.

These tests have been done you know.
They don't show what you'd think they do. The group that were prayed for and knew it actually did worse than the other groups.

So prayer actually makes things worse if you go by this study.

I don't think that's true by the way. One study would not prove that but it certainly proves no positive effect.

Quote:Another good example is the 2006 “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer” (STEP), also commonly called the “Templeton Foundation prayer study” because they funded it, or simply the “Great Prayer Experiment”, and was quite a rigorous investigation that was led by Harvard professor Herbert Benson. Starting with 1,802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients at six hospitals, they randomly split them into three groups and proceeded as follows:

• Both Groups 1 and 2 were advised that they might or might not be prayed for, but only those in Group 1 were actually prayed for .
  
  
• Group 3 were told that they would definitely be prayed for and they were.
  
  
• The congregations of three Christian churches (two Catholic and one Protestant) were then asked to pray for specific named prayer subjects in their own manner, but were also instructed to include the following phrase in their prayers: ‘for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications’
  

So what happened?
Major complications and thirty-day mortality occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3).
Yikes.
It has been speculated that the results of Group 3 may have been stress related, when told they would be prayed for, individuals may have begin to think “[i]am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?[/i]”
What is completely clear is not only that prayer simply did not work, but also that those who were not prayed for did a lot better.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

https://www.skeptical-science.com/scienc...-bad-ugly/

(October 11, 2019 at 2:26 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: These tests have been done you know.
They don't show what you'd think they do. The group that were prayed for and knew it actually did worse than the other groups.

So prayer actually makes things worse if you go by this study.

I don't think that's true by the way. One study would not prove that but it certainly proves no positive effect.

Quote:Another good example is the 2006 “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer” (STEP), also commonly called the “Templeton Foundation prayer study” because they funded it, or simply the “Great Prayer Experiment”, and was quite a rigorous investigation that was led by Harvard professor Herbert Benson. Starting with 1,802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients at six hospitals, they randomly split them into three groups and proceeded as follows:

• Both Groups 1 and 2 were advised that they might or might not be prayed for, but only those in Group 1 were actually prayed for .
  
  
• Group 3 were told that they would definitely be prayed for and they were.
  
  
• The congregations of three Christian churches (two Catholic and one Protestant) were then asked to pray for specific named prayer subjects in their own manner, but were also instructed to include the following phrase in their prayers: ‘for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications’
  

So what happened?
Major complications and thirty-day mortality occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3).
Yikes.
It has been speculated that the results of Group 3 may have been stress related, when told they would be prayed for, individuals may have begin to think “[i]am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?[/i]”
What is completely clear is not only that prayer simply did not work, but also that those who were not prayed for did a lot better.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

https://www.skeptical-science.com/scienc...-bad-ugly/

You know what's so great about this, right?

The Templeton Foundation is a Christian philanthropic organization that has a "horse in the race" so to speak.

They are actively looking for scientific confirmation of Christianity.

What is a very impressive, though, is they have the intellectual integrity NOT to 'spin' results on any of their studies.

Unlike the vast majority of other Christian apologists (WLC, Pantinga, McDowell, Strobel, Wallace, etc), who make a living on spinning, lying, and have NEVER corrected any of their fallacious arguments.

(October 12, 2019 at 1:48 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(October 11, 2019 at 2:26 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: These tests have been done you know.
They don't show what you'd think they do. The group that were prayed for and knew it actually did worse than the other groups.

So prayer actually makes things worse if you go by this study.

I don't think that's true by the way. One study would not prove that but it certainly proves no positive effect.


https://www.skeptical-science.com/scienc...-bad-ugly/

You know what's so great about this, right?

The Templeton Foundation is a Christian philanthropic organization that has a "horse in the race" so to speak.

They are actively looking for scientific confirmation of Christianity.

What is a very impressive, though, is they have the intellectual integrity NOT to 'spin' results on any of their studies.

Unlike the vast majority of other Christian apologists (WLC, Pantinga, McDowell, Strobel, Wallace, etc), who make a living on spinning, lying, and have NEVER corrected any of their fallacious arguments.

Yes I am aware of the Templeton foundation and as you say they could have suppressed this so it is in their favour that they didn't. Like an oil company funding research into climate change and publishing that it IS the fossil fuels doing it.

Hmm, where did I hear this kind of reasoning before?

Lek,   so you believe that world was created in 6 days? If not - you are not religious because its in your holy book - Bible, if yes - how you can call yourself educated? (you do call yourself and 5 billion believers educated on first page).