"I'll pray for you."

[Zarith]

Your explanations we're absurd given the definitions that you quoted, which completely backed up my points. Go read yourself again.

There is not a logical contradiction in positing that certain natural events have supernatural causes or agents involved. It is not borne out by experiment, but it is not the logical problem you seem to think it is.

Unless of course you believe in some additional proposition that says something to the effect of "things in the supernatural world are incapable of interacting with the natural world in a way that violates natural law", which is above and beyond (and in some cases, contrary to) what the word actually means.

You are completely incorrect once again. Whilst at the same time agreeing that your point is conceded. Nice.

Well, it should have been obvious to you from the start that I disbelieve in miracles, based on experience, so I'm not sure what you think I have conceded. What I wanted to see was what you believe happened in circumstances like these, and what extent of cherry-picking and rationalization you would tolerate in support of this view. In return, you evaded by asking a bunch of "why wouldn't you" questions. I agree -- why wouldn't you? So are you willing to tell me what it is you actually believe happened here?

You don't understand. That much we gathered.
Cheap point, target missed.

Oh I understand what you're saying. I just don't think there's good reason to accept "the bible is true", actually, I laugh at the idea.

[fr0d0]

The only thing I'm asking you to prove is why you feel you can correctly claim that all prayer is answered consistently while simultaneously mocking the claim that prayers are answered inconsistently for the fact that it is a claim beyond our scope of knowledge.

The claim that all prayer is answered consistently is absolutely logical, in the way that I framed it, addressing the Christian understanding of prayer. God answers according to his will, that we are not privy to.

The opposing claim that prayers are answered inconsistently are laughable. They don't address a supernatural God, therefore failing before they begin.

The answers are beyond our scope of knowledge. That process the above two assertions.

---

remember which of us is claiming that all prayers are answered by his/her pet god.

That claim holds. You cannot disprove it.

There's a follow up question... how do you know if the answer is from God.

---

-then there is no basis for proposing that any effect was supernatural, (nor have we seen anything that would suggest any "effect" at all, of any kind).... -in the first place-. End of.

Thanks for getting my back bro

---

@ zarith
Your first response doesn't make too much sense. Please correct the English if you'd like me to respond

r2. I believe the interpretation is validated scripturally and computes. I don't place the importance on the event that Catholics do.

r3. That is a correct response

[Zarith]

@ zarith
Your first response doesn't make too much sense. Please correct the English if you'd like me to respond

Just forget it then. The main claim I take issue with is your claim that a god would necessarily have to interact with the natural world in a way that accords with natural law. I see no reason for this belief (other than as an attempt to place a particular belief system squarely into the realm of the unfalsifiable), and many people who believe in god do not believe such a limitation has to exist. Which brings me to ...

r2. I believe the interpretation is validated scripturally and computes. I don't place the importance on the event that Catholics do.

Which interpretation? You listed several interpretations, but it's not clear to me that you believe any of them to be true. I want to know what it is you believe happened, and what natural processes took place to bring this about. Not what some person or other might think about it, but what you think about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

The claim that all prayer is answered consistently is absolutely logical, in the way that I framed it, addressing the Christian understanding of prayer.

No, it is not.

God answers according to his will, that we are not privy to.

Then you have no basis for making any such claim, as you have no basis for determining this will or which prayer belongs to what camp (his will/not his will). It becomes a baseless assertion, which is not "absolutely logical", in fact it is not "remotely" logical. It is simply an empty claim. In this endeavour to make something mysterious...at some point, you're going to have to realize that the mystery cuts both ways.

The opposing claim that prayers are answered inconsistently are laughable. They don't address a supernatural God, therefore failing before they begin.

Agreed, the proposal that prayers are answered -in any way-........ is laughable. "Supernatural god" proposals, similarly, fail before they begin, yes.

The answers are beyond our scope of knowledge. That process the above two assertions.

If it is beyond your knowledge then you should avoid making claims to such knowledge.

That claim holds. You cannot disprove it.

Claims do not "hold" by virtue of being uttered. No one has to disprove anything. Try again.

Thanks for getting my back bro

Anytime lover, just don't want to see you make an ass of yourself with your responses.

[Cyberman]

remember which of us is claiming that all prayers are answered by his/her pet god.

That claim holds. You cannot disprove it.

Conveniently for me, I don't need to.

There's a follow up question... how do you know if the answer is from God.

And this is where I came in, with the same point I posed to you in the form of my little experiment.

[Walking Void]

Fr0d0, when I or anyone else says that prayer is inconsistent with what is being measured, I repeat: We do not declare definite inconsistency, We simply declare that consistent results... PATTERNS, are not found. We could not find consistency.

[fr0d0]

I see no reason for this belief

Which interpretation? You listed several interpretations, but it's not clear to me that you believe any of them to be true. I want to know what it is you believe happened, and what natural processes took place to bring this about.

The reason for the belief is to have a positive outlook. This belief makes that possible.

The very last interpretation. None of the naturalistic interpretations. They are irrelevant.

---

@ Rhythm
Try to look beyond the end of your nose. You're missing the point. You have retreated to "oh no it isn't".

---

And this is where I came in, with the same point I posed to you in the form of my little experiment.

You came in dressed as a clown and squeezing your hooter.

If that was all that prayer entailed your objection might hold. Avoiding the problem isn't very scientific, yet here are you guys happy to ignore the details to prove a point.

---

Fr0d0, when I or anyone else says that prayer is inconsistent with what is being measured, I repeat: We do not declare definite inconsistency, We simply declare that consistent results... PATTERNS, are not found. We could not find consistency.

Your science is ignorant. What is your premise? A: That any request should be answered positively. This is a false premise.

If you want to address prayer as in Christianity, you need to address it, not a shadow of it that misses out the main facets.

[Cyberman]

And this is where I came in, with the same point I posed to you in the form of my little experiment.

You came in dressed as a clown and squeezing your hooter.

If that was all that prayer entailed your objection might hold. Avoiding the problem isn't very scientific, yet here are you guys happy to ignore the details to prove a point.

While I am, of course, always glad to entertain, I fear that was a mirror you saw instead of me. I raised no particular objections, merely proposed a mechanism whereby traditional claims for the efficacy of prayer such as you espouse might be put to an objective test. But please, do tell us again of this avoidance of the problem and which party is demonstrating it - I'm sure we could all benefit from your insight. If nothing else we can appreciate the humour.

[fr0d0]

You are too modest, my dear Stimbo

The proof presented by me is a simplistic one addressing the basic question. The follow up question, about crediting the right fella, pulls in more data. We have guidance for asking and ascertaining the source. Otherwise how would you tell the silk purse from the pigs ear.

You assert that you can't disprove that all prayers are answered. Indeed. Such is the claim by those quoting scientific studies here.

Can I prove the opposite? I don't and don't need to, as that would be absurd. I merely state the opposite opinion from my POV. I believe through faith. Reasoned faith.

My proof only addresses what you also dismiss. That disproofs are a joke.

[Cyberman]

I dismiss nothing as equally as I assert nothing. The essential purpose of scientific experimentation is to eliminate ambiguity. The overarching claim is that all prayers are answered and solely by ol' Yahweh the Bloody-Handed itself. The mechanism I propose would measure that claim against pure chance as well as other putative, even nonsensical, causative agencies. If the results so obtained are indistinguishable from those agencies that would be interesting, but if indistinguishable from chance operating as a factor, well that would be downright damning.

In fact, screw this. Once I've sobered up I'll do the experiment myself, double blind and with proper control protocols, and stick the whole thing on my YouTube channel. 'Bout time I used the damn thing anyway.