NO YOU HEATHEN!!!!!!!!! They should be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

All those people who had complications weren't "real" christians.  They obviously worship heathen sects.  Also, they were lousy tippers who left their cell phones on in the movie theater.  See?  It all makes perfect sense.

Geez.  I can see now that you guys have no idea how to think in "Christian Logic."

You are all forgetting the best argument ever.  If God allowed himself to be "proven" by demonstrating his super powers, then all need for faith would be negated, and the whole system of free will would collapse, since everyone would then automatically believe in God.

So, God had to stand aside and allow this result so that people of faith can still believe in him.

It makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

 

(Oh, I learned this defense from the guy who told me that God allowed the devil to put fossils in the ground to fool us into thinking that the world was older than 6000 years.  No shit.)

 

Anybody else notice that in the 2 days that this has been up, not a single theist has responded to it?  It'a amazing how theists shrink away when presented with hard facts.

 

This is a good point.  An even better one is that no prayer has ever been answered, anywhere, with a probablity that is greater than chance.   Christians have no evidence that miracles, the power of prayer, or god itself are real.

 

I'm not suggesting that every prayer gets answered, but even if some prayers get answered, there should be some statistical decrease in complications.  Instead, the complications increased.

Is God punishing us for questioning him?

And also, why does God choose to answer some people's prayers, and not others?  Or is it that God really wants us to rely on faith instead of evidence.  Which doesn't make much sense, because faith will have you believe in whatever religion you were born into, and of course, we all know the problems in the world this has caused.

I think you are forgetting something here.  All three groups were in the trial (all three groups knew they were in the trial, and they knew the trial was about prayer), and thus were under the same stresses.  The only added stress for group 3 was the fact that they were told they were being prayed for.  As for the fact that those who received prayer and were not told had the same level of complications, is exactly my point.  If prayer worked, then that group should have had statistically lower levels of complications, instead, they were practically identical to those who did not receive prayer.



So the power of prayer depends on who is praying?  Wow, I wouldn't even have believed that nonsense when I was a Christian, and I know for a fact that both the bible and the church doesn't recognize that either (I'll save you the bible quotes, as since you recognize the theory of evolution (good for you by the way), it's obvious you don't take the bible literally).



Ok, so prayer is to help you endure suffering.  The big problem with this is that we already know from other studies, that if your psychological health is improved, then your ability to recover from surgery is greatly improved.  Indeed, this is why the third group was told that they were being prayed for.  It was to see if telling somebody that they are being prayed for improved their psychological health (and thus, increase their ability to recover from surgery).



So you only know for a fact that God has intervened is if it is miraculous in character?  Come on, that's just nonsense.  Even if God only answered prayers with small amounts of difference (i.e., only helping you a bit), it would still add up in a statistical study.  Heck, that is exactly why we do studies like this, to look for the small amounts of difference.



Prayer obtains these things that God would have not given unless it was asked for.  This is EXACTLY what would have shown up in the study!



So God is so great and wise that you can't see his work with science.  Well ain't that a little convenient?  If I've ever heard a cop-out, that's it.

All you have done is repeat the exact same thing you said before (almost word for word), despite the fact that I countered those arguments.  Since I have already countered these arguments, I won't waste time re-typing them.  You can look back at what I have previously said and comment on that.



Providence is the guardianship and control exercised by a deity.  Everything about us is tied to our physical and psychological health.  If God won't improve those or protect those, then he isn't being a very good guardian.  Indeed, what is a guardian, other then someone who protects our physical/psychological health?  Also, the goal of prayer is to effect our lives in one form of another, and since everything about us is tied to our physical/psychological health, then it should be seen in this study.

Remember, the study wasn't trying to look directly at God himself, it was looking at the effects of prayer on us, and we are obviously not beyond study.



My comment about you accepting evolution was only to point out that you personally did not interpret the bible in a literal fashion (which is why I said I wouldn't bother giving you any biblical quotes), nothing more.

Two things here:

1) Prove that we have a soul (and thus we can have spiritual health).

2) And that spiritual health is not connected to psychological health.  Along with this, you can give me examples of spititual health (remember, it can't have anything to do with psychological health).

Also, what about all the miracles we hear about where God answers prayers and people are miraculously healed?  If even a single one of these stories are supposed to be true, then God does answer prayers by altering physical health.

The soul of a man is his mind. Psychological health only measures such things as the stability of our emotional state. The state of our soul in a spiritual sense, whether it is in mortal sin or in a state of grace, would not be able to be determined by anybody except God and would definitely be unable to be determined by any human scientific test. Likewise, the state of our souls as progressing in grace or virtue would be unable to be determined. Likewise, the merit our soul has before God would be unable to be determined. Certain things, granted, would be "felt" in a psychological exam, but it would be unable to grasp the things themselves.

Further, God, in His Providence, would not necessarily answer prayer in the exact time or even way that we prayed for. For example, God could easily answer the prayer for a particular person by giving that person sufficent grace to bear their sufferings with patience. Or, God could give them grace to know their state in life as a result of their sufferings. Or any number of things, all of which are answers to the prayer. But all of these are non-measurable in a lab study. 

Lastly, while I do not dispute that God does in special cases perform extraordinary physical healings, I disagree that these effects always or even for the most part are a necessary result of prayer.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

That would not be prayer, but superstition. The Catholic Church repudiates such things as contrary to faith. However, I think it unfair to label this particular group as superstitous, as they clearly indicate later in that same paragraph that God always hears and grants ones request in prayer, but not in necessarily the way one requests it. This, of course, is perfectly valid to say. As long as one prays with faith, God hears ones prayer. His answer in a particular way is not mandatory.

Further, in your own post you say that you would be living in a palatial mansion if this prayer worked. But that would be manifestly untrue, as you have never prayed the novena with the requisite conditions of faith in God

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Can you give me a short version of the philosophical proof of god?  Or a link to a long version?  'Cause I've never seen such a thing before.

Ok, the soul of a man is his mind.  I have no problem agreeing with this.  However, what you think psychological health is about is quite a bit off.  Psychological health is the health of the mind (emotionally, intellectually, etc).



For starters, if only God can tell what our spiritual health is, then what is the point of spiritual health?  However, you seem to counter your own argument when you say certain things can be felt in a psychological exam.  As I have said before, the purpose of the above test wasn't to try a grasp the "things" themelves, it was seeing if anything was being felt.  So by your own admisson above, that certain things would be "felt" in a psychological exam, the study showed have shown something.



Ok, so lets take you example of God giving a person sufficient grace to bear their sufferings with patience.  If a person is able to bear suffering better (in any way), then that person is more likely to recover from a surgery.  This is a perfect example of what could be seen in the study.  Same thing with someone being able to accept their state in life, this is also a psychological improvement, and thus would increase their ability to recover, so it would also be able to be seen in the study.  All of these are measurable in a lab study.



My point wasn't that God is always supposed to perform extraodinary physical, I was only pointing out that by your own admission, God will answer prayers in a physical fashion, not just a spiritual fashion.  So even if God only answers prayers through in a physical way once in a while, that is still enough to be seen in a study of this type.

StMichael has already brought it up here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3590?page=5

And, I think, in another thread as well.

-Triften

This cannot measure whether or not the soul is in a state of sin or grace, nor can it measure the merit that the soul has accrued before God.

Because it determines whether we are alive in grace or not, which is important in view of our eternal salvation.

Only of some motions in the soul. For example, as was said, it measures intellectual health, which can be measured. But it cannot measure certain other measures that are beyond what the test has competency to measure. Further, I think you are just ignoring my consideration that prayer is neither infallibly effective, nor that prayer does not necessarily accomplish goals in a simultaneous timeframe. Prayer affects the eternal Providence of God, not always the specific dispositions of the person prayed for at that time.

I would contend that their emotional and mental health could break down while their spiritual health increased contrawise.

No it would not be sufficent. God does not answer our prayers very often the instant we pray for something, but works things out in His Providence. Likewise, God does not often answer our prayers in a physical way. In fact, the only thing that God has given as a certain product of prayer is grace or virtue, and not any material good.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

PS - The thought that popped into my head recently was that this study can never be made normative. I doubt that there were people in the study who were not prayed for. One cannot have a control group in this sort of matter, because I am sure that all those sick in the control group were likely prayed for by other people elsewhere; for example, many groups merely pray for all the sick. It would be insane to try to conduct this sort of test in a scientific manner. I also happened to find that in the particular study you cited, this was likewise true in a more explicit way as many of those in the "control" group had family and other praying for them.

 

No, I just clarified. However, I never said that God only answers prayers in a spiritual way. I said that merely the only prayer God said that He would always answer was for grace. God has no obligation to answer a prayer for physical healing in the way we intend. God rather tends to answer the substance of what we intend - God grants what is really helpful in this situation. My main point, however, is that God grants our prayers in the ways and times that He sees fit, according to His wisdom. Even if we assumed that the one group was prayed for and the other not (contrary to reality, as I pointed out earlier), there is no reason to expect an immediate and physical result in even one of the patients. For example, God usually would grant such prayers in His own time and according to His own wisdom. If what we asked for, likewise, is not good for the person's eternal salvation, God would do what was better for the person, which is not necessarily to heal them physically. In fact, it could be quite the opposite. God is not bound by prayer to act in the timeframe of a study, nor is He bound to act in the way we desire. God orders things according to His wisdom.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

God is provable from natural reason. There, no ambiguity. I clarify my statements because a good deal of your arguments are based on wrong interpretations of what Christians mean when they say things.

In answer to the results of prayer: no, the results of prayer are not necessarily empirically verifiable. They can be, but only in extraordinary circumstances. That is not to say that prayers are not answered, however. They may even be answered in an empirically verifiable way, but that time of answering or way of answering is up to God.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

A verifiable answer to a prayer is not necessarily extraordinary, but could be. Extraordinary "answers" to prayers to saints are documented by the Catholic Church for use in canonization proceedings. I would also point out that I see no reason to posit that prayer needs to be "verified" at all.

 Prayer can be of both species, verifiable and unverifiable, because prayer is not always about obtaining a specific result. Even if prayer is for a particular "verifiable" object, such an event does not always come about as a result of the prayer, nor is such an object obtained always in our specific intended time of reception, nor does such an event occur in an extraordinary nature. Prayer is of various natures. It depends.

 I never claimed that an intuitive statement led to knowledge of God, or that we had self-evident knowledge of God. In order to satisfy your curiosity, here are the five proofs for the existence of God, in full, from the Summa Theologica:

"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

   The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

   The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

   The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

   The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

 

 I don't see a reason, however, to discuss these here. There are  other forums that already exist in which I am currently discussing these.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

 

 

It might seem coincidence from a human point of view. And that is precisely my point as to one reason why it would be statistically indeterminate whether prayer works or not. We ascribe the effects of prayer to God because we believe it to be such from faith, which is precisely why you cannot validate the effects of ordinary prayer in the real world. You can only do two things: you can work from the natural knowledge of God in philosophy to show that God guides the universe and can be sought through prayer, or you can show that saints' prayers brought extraordinary results.

 

For the verifiable version of extraordinary effects of prayer, one can look at any number of miracles worked by the prayers of the saints. I can point out at least one article off the top of my head in the October 2000 edition of the Hawaiian Medical Journal, on the extraordinary remission of cancer. This particular case was a miracle whose authority is being advanced for the canonization of a Fr. Damien, who worked with lepers in Hawaii. The miracle was that a lady had extensive metastatic cancer and, after prayer to Fr. Damien, her cancer spontaneously disappeared. There are other examples, but this is one I recently looked up for a question in another forum.  

Unverifiable effects of prayer are reliant on God's Providence. All prayer does not obtain an equal effect, otherwise you could easily say (as some crazy fundamentalists do), "I want a pot of gold. In Jesus' name! Amen!" This is crazy. The only thing God explicitly ensured that prayer would always obtain was His help through grace. Our prayers are always heard by God, but they are merely answered in different ways. But none of these would be ordinarily empirically verifiable. For example, God could not heal our mother (as we prayed for) but give her the strength to bear her suffering patiently in such a manner so that she would merit salvation. This, of course, would be the general intention that we really wanted, but it was not the actual specific intention of our prayer. But the prayer was answered. Or, God is not constrained to our time to answer our prayer. He says, "knock and I will answer." He does not say, "knock and I will answer immediately." Sometimes, God tries to teach us patience in prayer. So, for example, I could pray fervently for the conversion of my atheist son every day for years without any immediate result. However, my perseverance in prayer could be good for my salvation and would eventually bring about the conversion of my son (witness, Saint Monica and Saint Augustine).

But that's not the same as self-evident or intuitive. It means we can reason to the fact that He exists from what we know without revelation (naturally).

 

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Those are some intriguing results, but the methodology is a bit biased. They forgot a category. Those who were told they weren't prayed for, and weren't prayed for. Without that, I can't say as the results are a conclusive study except between the first two groups.

Edit: I may be making an error, but I also should point out that the religion of the patient wasn't taken into consideration either. If an atheist was told he was being prayed for, that could complicate things emotionally and stress wise for the atheist.

Right... So we have Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit... just one ! Ain't it something?

 

Theoretically, Uranus created what we now see... Zeus, Chronos, Poseidon, Hera, Artemis, etc. they all came later. Indeed: ONE creator, but MANY gods. Your theorem of one creator is kept, so is the theorem of many gods.

 

And, by the way, just why must there be only one creator? Why do you say that? I can imagine multiple Gods creating multiple entities in this world. What's wrong with that?

StMichael, I believe you are here to try to have real conversation, so I'm trying very hard not to get aggravated, but you've got to help me a little bit here!

Reason is described by logic.  Period.  So if we can reason to god's existence, then we must begin with a self evident statement, or we're not being logical. 

Please.  Please.  Without using anything that is outside of nature (in other words, using nothing but standard logic) demonstrate that god exists.  Your first cause argument is not logical because it is a baseless assertion and so defies logic.  I'm not going to bother pointing out the flaws in the 5 points you keep bringing up because everyone else has done such a good job of it so many times.

You have a choice.  Either revelation is needed to prove god, or logic proves god.  Which is it?

If you say logic, then you have to abide by the rules of logic.  If you change the rules, then you don't get to say logic.  It's that simple, man!

 

Hypothesis: If God desired that his existence could be proven bysomething like a simple double-blind experiment, a knock-down empirical proof of God's existence would have been dreamed up and executed centuries ago. 

 

If God exists. And if God exists such that he desires to be known and approached by faith. And if God does not jump through hoops for scientists (i.e., the FSM is not your trained monkey), then it makes perfect sense why no proof is forthcoming even though anecdotal reports abound. God knows about the experiment and refuses to have his existence subject to peer-reviewed study. (I think the boss says somewhere in the instruction manual that you can't make demands like that.)   

 

If God wanted his existence to be undeniable, then he would hover over your shoulder like a principal or throw down thunderbolts when you thought bad thoughts. If God exists, what we know of the world suggests that God is not that sort of God.

 

If the only reason you have for believing in God is this study, the most logical conclusion would be that the most likely fact is that God does not exist. 

If the study had found a statistically significant improvement, however, true non-believers would be no more moved than a true believer. I say this because I have read the responses of atheists to studies like this when the results suggest "a miracle." And can you blame them? Would you let one study or even a popular set of studies by a group with a possible agenda, determine your beliefs on this matter?  

 

 

 

 

St. Michael wrote:

 

First, the Creator must be one, because no division can exist in Him. Second, and primarily, as He is the creator of all things, He must be purely in act and without any potency. All of these beings, assuming many, must all have the same essence, which is to be purely in act and without division so that what they are must be the same as their act of existence. They must likewise be without matter, as matter is a form of potency. But that which is without matter cannot have quantity. So, there can never be more than one God, as there is no matter to differentiate different "Gods." Each "God" would be the same "God," and more than one could not exist because there would be no matter to differentiate them.

 

First, what is there about creation that limits it to being done by one.  Our experience clearly shows that many things have multiple creators.  Second, what does "fully in act and without potency."  You are just assigning characteristics to creation that need not be there.  There can be more than one god just as easily as there can be one.

The gods (and goddesses: when I say "the gods" I usually mean the goddesses as well) are supernatural.  Being outside nature, they are not subject to the natural rules that bind us.