Prayer Studies

[Heywood]

Why is it "logically invalid"?

Because it's unfalsifiable: you prayer works? Yay, prayer works! Your prayer doesn't work? Duh, god has his reasons and he didn't want to grant your prayer!

You and a lot of other christians strive to set up situations like this, thinking that they're sure fire, no-lose scenarios for your side, but truthfully you've just broken any hope of keeping your beliefs rationally justifiable. Once again: your moving goalposts aren't anyone else's problem.

Just because something is un-falsifiable doesn't mean it is logically invalid. You will have to do better.

You are the one changing the goal posts. This thread is about the validity of prayer studies....you want to change it into a thread about whether prayer works or not.

---

You must think me dreadfully dull to continually refer back to proving that god exists, but I refuse to argue anymore in regards to something that has absolutely no proof to support its existence. If you want to debate a subject, I will suggest, not suppose, that you must first prove the subject of your argument exists before infringing upon logic for the sake of an absurd claim.

I don't think you dreadfully dull. I think you don't have a counter argument against my argument that shows prayer studies are fatally flawed so you want to talk about God's existence instead.

Look, God's existence has nothing to do with whether or not prayer studies are scientifically sound. They are unsound whether or not God exists.