Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Honestly this seems so simple and yet... I mean, there are Christians who believe in intercessory prayer, that is, God will heal people of specific ills if believers pray for that healing. For those Christians who disagree with that, please address your concerns to your brothers and sisters in Christ. Given that, it's just a matter of setting up proper experiments and collecting data. If you could show that people who prayed to the Christian god were "miraculously" healed at a significantly greater rate than people who weren't prayed for, were prayed for to a different god or to like a milk jug or something, then you'd at least have something pointing to evidence of some kind of possible divine intervention happening. That would be like beginner level evidence.

 

[Larniavc]

but they aim to prove He does not exist.

No they don’t. It’s just an interesting side effect and not all intentional.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Honestly this seems so simple and yet... I mean, there are Christians who believe in intercessory prayer, that is, God will heal people of specific ills if believers pray for that healing. For those Christians who disagree with that, please address your concerns to your brothers and sisters in Christ. Given that, it's just a matter of setting up proper experiments and collecting data. If you could show that people who prayed to the Christian god were "miraculously" healed at a significantly greater rate than people who weren't prayed for, were prayed for to a different god or to like a milk jug or something, then you'd at least have something pointing to evidence of some kind of possible divine intervention happening. That would be like beginner level evidence.

I posted 'beginner level evidence' after praying for a friend with cancer(several tumours) in the thyroid.
The hospital insisted in removing the thyroid and found no sign of cancer in the removed organ. In 2000 operations they had never seen such a thing. They had pre op and post op biopsy to prove it. I have posted the medical records.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I posted 'beginner level evidence' after praying for a friend with cancer(several tumours) in the thyroid.
The hospital insisted in removing the thyroid and found no sign of cancer in the removed organ. In 2000 operations they had never seen such a thing. They had pre op and post op biopsy to prove it. I have posted the medical records.

That's not data. That's an anecdote.

 

[Carl Emerson]

That's not data. That's an anecdote.

Medical records available here.

Speaking In Tongues

Post #120

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Honestly this seems so simple and yet... I mean, there are Christians who believe in intercessory prayer, that is, God will heal people of specific ills if believers pray for that healing. For those Christians who disagree with that, please address your concerns to your brothers and sisters in Christ. Given that, it's just a matter of setting up proper experiments and collecting data. If you could show that people who prayed to the Christian god were "miraculously" healed at a significantly greater rate than people who weren't prayed for, were prayed for to a different god or to like a milk jug or something, then you'd at least have something pointing to evidence of some kind of possible divine intervention happening. That would be like beginner level evidence.

A few controlled trials have been done on the outcomes of praying, mostly for medical outcomes, including one trial on the retrospective influence of prayer(!). Results have been inconclusive overall - See this overview: Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials (nih.gov).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Medical records available here.

Speaking In Tongues

Post #120

And yet in the overwhelming majority of people diagnosed with cancer who are prayed for (most people with religious family and/or friends), the cancer doesn't mysteriously disappear, and many of them die.

A lucky prayer?

 

[Carl Emerson]

I doubt if anyone being genuinely used in this way would have any interest in some 'experiment' we are too busy seeking to do what has been appointed.

 

[Carl Emerson]

And yet in the overwhelming majority of people diagnosed with cancer who are prayed for (most people with religious family and/or friends), the cancer doesn't mysteriously disappear, and many of them die.

A lucky prayer?

I don't believe in 'luck'.

I would have thought as a 'good' atheist that you wouldn't believe in luck either.

Healings are appointed - not all who pray are given the faith to see them happen.

 

[Carl Emerson]

And yet in the overwhelming majority of people diagnosed with cancer who are prayed for (most people with religious family and/or friends), the cancer doesn't mysteriously disappear, and many of them die.

A lucky prayer?

If you think it was a 'one off' "lucky prayer" then read the many such events I have had the privilege of witnessing.

Jesus's Ministry

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

If you think it was a 'one off' "lucky prayer" then read the many such events I have had the privilege of witnessing.

Jesus's Ministry

Why should we take your word for it though? How do we know you're not misremembering or misinterpreting what you think you saw or just bald-faced lying? We don't. That's the point. Did you record each of these incidents and collect data on them? Can you produce any medical records for these events? Are you reporting the times when healing didn't happen? The misses? We don't know. And you're just one guy. The dozen or so episodes you recounted in that thread aren't even an adequate sample size for a single study.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Why should we take your word for it though? How do we know you're not misremembering or misinterpreting what you think you saw or just bald-faced lying? We don't. That's the point. Did you record each of these incidents and collect data on them? Are you reporting the times when healing didn't happen? The misses? We don't know.

Yes you are right - given that you wont accept evidence when it is presented - you dont know.

At the end of the day folks believe what they want to believe - it is not about science.

I have worked in the scientific sphere all my life - some believe some dont.

 

[eleos1954]

These eyewitness accounts: do we have the original signed and dated statements from the eyewitnesses?
Which archeological finds indicate God's interference in our world? Which ones are yet to be found?

Really? So unless you have that you don't believe anything that someone wrote down about historical happenings, events, people etc. and only if there were original signed dated statements from eyewitnesses? Do you apply this to history as a whole or just the bible? If so have you verified these? These are rhetorical questions.

We have the Bible and then we have archeology ... and are still "digging in the dirt".

Modern archaeology has helped us realize that the Bible is historically accurate even in the smallest of details. There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that support every book of the Bible. Here are just a few examples ...

https://www.thedestinlog.com/story/...red-is-bible-historically-accurate/985681007/

and then of course we have prophecy .... and no ... this is not the forum for that.

Can you prove to me the Bible isn't the inspired Word of God?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Science simply is the wrong tool for the job. Scientist see only with natural eyes and interpret with natural reasoning. This produces some of the most ridiculous conclusions.

What has religion found to be true that corrected the findings of science? The fact is that religion has had to change its beliefs as science finds out how the universe works, it has never happened the other way around.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't believe in 'luck'.

I would have thought as a 'good' atheist that you wouldn't believe in luck either.

Healings are appointed - not all who pray are given the faith to see them happen.

Atheism is lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing else.

I don't 'believe' in luck, but I think it's a convenient way to characterise beneficial confluences of unpredictable events.

The problem I have with the effects of prayer is the same problem I have with Freudian psychoanalysis - it can be fitted to any outcome. If a good outcome results, it is attributed to the prayer. If a good outcome doesn't result, there is a wide range of reasons why not.

OTOH, errors of diagnosis are common, administrative mix-ups do happen, and complete spontaneous remission is not unheard of. And just because some things are rare, it doesn't mean that when they happen a supernatural explanation becomes more plausible. Confirmation bias is probably the most ubiquitous human bias.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

At the end of the day folks believe what they want to believe - it is not about science.

People can only believe what they are convinced of by evidence, either good or bad evidence. I want to believe I will live after I die but I am not convinced that there is an afterlife. I cannot make myself believe there is, no one can choose to believe anything.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you think it was a 'one off' "lucky prayer" then read the many such events I have had the privilege of witnessing.

Jesus's Ministry

A whole raft of anecdotes, that, as you note, don't happen every day. I suggest that when you see the world through 'supernatural lenses' there are a number of cognitive biases that could lead you to your conclusion - topped by confirmation bias.

 

[NxNW]

Really? So unless you have that you don't believe anything that someone wrote down about historical happenings, events, people etc. and only if there were original signed dated statements from eyewitnesses? Do you apply this to history as a whole or just the bible? If so have you verified these? These are rhetorical questions.

What standard do you think we should set for something this purports to be eyewitness evidence?

We have videotaped descriptions from eyewitnesses to Lincoln's assassination (they lived well into the 1900s).

We have samples of George Washington's handwriting.

We have actual video of Mark Twain.

There is no physical or first-hand descriptive evidence to support the majority of the Bible.

Modern archaeology has helped us realize that the Bible is historically accurate even in the smallest of details. There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that support every book of the Bible. Here are just a few examples ...

https://www.thedestinlog.com/story/...red-is-bible-historically-accurate/985681007/

Beyond a few irrelevant anecdotes, your link does not support your claim in the slightest.

Can you prove to me the Bible isn't the inspired Word of God?

Can you prove that Elvis didn't deliver a pizza to me last night?

 

[Carl Emerson]

People can only believe what they are convinced of by evidence

Really ???

Folks believe all sorts of stuff without evidence.

 

[Carl Emerson]

A whole raft of anecdotes, that, as you note, don't happen every day. I suggest that when you see the world through 'supernatural lenses' there are a number of cognitive biases that could lead you to your conclusion - topped by confirmation bias.

So when I was suddenly interrupted in the middle of a meal, dropped everything, called a cab, rushed across the city in urgency, arrived at exactly the time my friend was dying of a heart attack, prayed for her and she was fully healed in two minutes. This was a co-incidence? Cognitive bias? Really...