Looks like confirmation bias to me.That’s a promise.There’s nothing to say that that promise is enforced in any way.Nothing in that sentence that states, or even implies, that “god” is bound by anything. If it’s a physical phenomena which can be measured, then by definition, it’s not supernatural. Wrong again.As I have pointed out what you suggest studying doesn’t relate to any evidence of god. What you’re failing to notice (and this refers back to your comment about “not looking” – ergo your own bias) is that my “crap” comments are directed at your “logic”, your argument and your assumptions.Not the overall premise. On the contrary, defining what constitutes correct prayer in advance of the experiment will avoid precisely those ill-founded objections. You have yet to define “theologically correct”. Originally Posted by John Galt This is a hypothetical question, starting from an assumed that the supernatural may exist.On another thread exchemist made this remark:The point, surely, is that invoking supernatural causes is scientifically useless because a supernatural intervention is by definition impossible to make predictions from, as no rules or patterns govern its behaviour. In other words it’s merely part of a self-reinforcing pre-existing conclusion.

For example, many believers think that reading the Bible is more than a source of information. Which god? If I had to guess, I would say that prayer, including prayers involving reconciliation with God and prayers theologically effective in repelling negative influences (prayer to St.

No science works that way. You have yet to define “theologically correct”. I chose the prayer to St. Agreed. Something you have not only consistently failed to show but have, equally consistently, shown to the case for yourself. I specifically said to try a study linking prayer group participants by time, or time and place.

If it’s a physical phenomena which can be measured, then by definition, it’s not supernatural. Michael is amazingly effective in helping a believer resist temptation and overcome vice. Then they’re wrong.It’s not a source of information, except, incidentally, badly-mangled history. Indeed, I now find myself questioning whether or not the studies conducted in the past have adhered to this necessary condition. This is a clear and concise expression of a principle/thought I have seen many times when discussing the interface between science and religion. There will never be one grandiose experiment that will prove that God exists.

That is why I chose it. Does that mean a little more down? *chuckle* This was not done in these studies. In other words you were talking about a different study altogether.That’s like complaining that watching the football results don’t tell you if your basket ball team won. I may have used it myself on more than one occassion. I, Sir Duck, am a GODDESS!! Sheesh get it right, will you? And it’s obvious that you are guessing.Please show how you know that these “negative influences” actually are such.Alternatively is it not possible to say that praying is an “influencing variable” that leads to an erroneous perception that god exists?I.e. you appear to be assuming a priori that god exists and anything that leads to a lack of belief is an “influencing variable”.Using your own “reasoning” it’s also possible to assume a priori that god doesn’t exist and that anything that leads to belief is an “influencing variable”.In short, you’ve failed, miserably, again to make your case. The analysis of the effect (if it should occur) is a job for the investigators in their discussion.

If a non-believer was under the influence of some variable that could be repelled with prayer, then this prayer could work especially if the it was combined with a source of strength such as seeking God daily through His Word. Right, which causes a problem in the definition of supernatural. I specifically said to try a study linking prayer group participants by time, or time and place.

Originally Posted by AlexG Unless of course one attributes some kind of physical phenomenon that can be measurable say, to ghosts. Unless of course one attributes some kind of physical phenomenon that can be measurable say, to ghosts. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr Originally Posted by babe I, Sir Duck, am a GODDESS!! Sheesh get it right, will you?

Of course you are. The experiments suggested above involved closer attention to the prayer groups so that participants prayed in a way that was more theologically correct. Often theory follows data. Michael) might be effective in removing an “influencing variable”. Originally Posted by dedo The papers confirm nothing.

Rather, the above comments simply add more support for the idea that atheism is not absence of belief, it is absence of perception created by the presence of something that causes extreme bias. However, on reflection, I see no reason it should be true – unless we wish to adopt circular logic in the definition of supernatural. Words like “crap” etc. make my case for me. The papers confirm nothing. Equally, when investigating the effects of prayer we should ensure that the prayer meets the the standards required of prayer by the relevant religion.

Thus, combining a known effective prayer with a source of strength could be very effective in removing anything that harms perception. I have given several examples where a study could be conducted and an effect could be measured. Unless of course one attributes some kind of physical phenomenon that can be measurable say, to ghosts. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr Originally Posted by dedo The idea that God is bound by His own rules is supported by Christian theology:Psalm 89:34 I will not violate my covenant or alter what my lips have uttered. But one has to believe FIRST. And here are some papers (Krucoff M.W. et al., 2005, Aviles, J.M. et al., 2001, Benson, H. et al., 2006​) that confirm your claim concerning the effect of praying.

I kind of have to agree. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr Except that, one more time: prayer has been scientifically shown to be of no use except as a placebo and then only when it is known about by the recipient.Your suggested “experiment” does not, despite your numerous calls to remove extraneous “influencing variables”, do so. So, if you can bring yourself to consider that the supernatural might exist, why would it be excluded from following its own set of rules? Quite simple really isn’t it… supernatural is outside the bounds of natural phenomenon. Surely, anyone with a minimal background in science who was not biased could answer the simple question with numerous examples: The problem here is that you (in effect) define “without bias” to be “someone who believes in god from the start”. “Assuming God did exist, and He wished to make His presence known in a manner that is consistent with His will, then can you devise an experiment that would give some evidence of a possible influence of God with the understanding that no single experiment could prove the existence of God, unless He were to choose to allow that to happen.” This is crap.Since the only way you could ascertain a manner professional essay writing service
that is “consistent with his will” is to assume (again) that he exists, and that you know what his will is 1.In other words you’re assuming the conclusion in order to arrive at it.That’s not only not good science it’s not even science.1 Plus the fact that any time (= every occasion you run it?) that you don’t get a “positive” result you can simply say “well god didn’t want to make his presence known this time”.Therefore those who do believe can claim (legitimately in their eyes) that a non-result isn’t evidence against the hypothesis. The prayer to St. If a person will not even look for data, that indicates bias.

This was not done in these studies.Rather, the above comments simply add more support for the idea that atheism is not absence of belief, it is absence of perception created by the presence of something that causes extreme bias.Surely, anyone with a minimal background in science who was not biased could answer the simple question with numerous examples:”Assuming God did exist, and He wished to make His presence known in a manner that is consistent with His will, then can you devise an experiment that would give some evidence of a possible influence of God with the understanding that no single experiment could prove the existence of God, unless He were to choose to allow that to happen.” In general, it is more effective when combined with daily religious practice. Originally Posted by babe I, Sir Duck, am a GODDESS!! Sheesh get it right, will you? Of course you are. Yeah. Oh, wrong.They confirm that prayer, under the conditions specified, does nothing. Okay.In which case the previous arguments apply. Yes, it’s the standard get out clause: “you just didn’t pray hard enough”, “you didn’t really believe” or even “well of course that didn’t work because god isn’t going to pander to your atheistic science and respond to tests of his power” etc.

You know, the ones you said you couldn’t see… It ALWAYS means ‘my theology’. I’m making your case by pointing out your errors? Some disconnect here, surely. Again: crap.It reinforces a pre-existing perception.You have, once again, taken an a priori assumption as being factual, and assumed that belief is not only the default case but also that it is justified. The only evidence we have that God is honest is the fact that he says that he’s honest in his own book.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr Originally Posted by dedo The supernatural means: “to not be bound by natural laws”. Originally Posted by John Galt Originally Posted by Dywyddyr If you were testing a medicine you would surely wish to know that it was a bona fide medicine, administered in an appropriate manner and in the correct dosage. However, my curiosity is about whether non-believer volunteers could have a “change of perception” by seeking God according to a theologically correct methodology. So in all due respect, the answer should be ”no” there is no way for science to measure a supernatural event. Michael because of the number of times that I have seen temptation just disappear when saying this prayer. Except that, one more time: prayer has been scientifically shown to be of no use except as a placebo and then only when it is known about by the recipient.Your suggested “experiment” does not, despite your numerous calls to remove extraneous “influencing variables”, do so.Even IF there were some effect (doubtful 1) you have not eliminated ANY other variables, therefore you could not say definitively that the prayer itself had any effect – either alone or in conjunction with other factors.1 Why would praying by a non-believer be seen as a “source of strength”? To view prayer in that way requires the pre-existing belief. The experiments suggested above involved closer attention to the prayer groups so that participants prayed in a way that was more theologically correct. To me, bias indicates being under the influence of something.

That way we can avoid the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.