kurt vonnegut said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Yeah, maybe.

I just think its interesting when atheists says they don't believe in God, 99.9999999999999999% of the time they are specifically referencing the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the one they don't believe in.

I also think the "how could we possibly choose the right God" argument, which TPS seems to be hinting at in the OP, isn't a particularly well thought out one. At this point I think we can reasonably rule out Zeus, Odin, and Ahura Mazda.

---

Most of the atheists you converse with are probably in the US and so reference to the Christian God is probably just a 'know your audience' thing. In other words, if you and I are discussing arguments for or against God, it makes little sense for me to tell you why I don't believe in Zeus, Odin, or Ahura Mazda. But, for what its worth, I am unconvinced that they exist also.

I think the 'how could we possibly choose the right God' has some value. I don't believe that the intention is to equate the likelihood of Christianity and Greek Pagan beliefs. If that were the case, you could count me as considering the Christian God as more likely than Zeus.

1. I think the argument intends to point out that billions of people have lived and died believing in the 'wrong' Gods and gods. And among those billions would have been brilliant minds, philosophers, and honest/sincere believers. It is obviously soooooo easy to be "wrong". Most people who have lived are "wrong". Most people alive today are "wrong". . . . . So, maybe you are wrong also?

My perception is that the vast majority of religious people find it exceptionally easy to wholly discount and wave off the religious experience of other religions as 'wrong' while considering it absurd that anyone could possibly deny yours.

2. The argument hints at the fact that humans have been inventing thousands of gods for thousands of years and to point at the one you were born into and say 'this one is real' seems awfully convenient.

3. Lastly, I think the argument suggests a claim that, if there is a God, then it is not readily apparent which God there is and what this God wants. And I think this argument is particularly valuable when you consider the proposed stakes. If Christianity is true, then it is, by an infinite margin, the single most important thing for us to know and it has infinite eternal consequences. Yet, 2/3 of people don't follow Christianity and the 1/3 that do fight about everything. For all religion does to promote humility in our behavior, it seems to have forgotten to promote humility in what we are to claim to know.

It has been explained to me that to know or believe in God is not an exercise in science and empiricism, that God is not found through study of history, or through study of language and culture, but that it is an experienced spiritual 'evidence' derived from a relationship which gives people their faith. And then it is assumed that everyone must have the same experiences or else 'we are doing it wrong'.

Ultimately, I think, the 'how can we choose. . . ' argument is meant to attack the hubris of those who assume with perfect certainty, that they can't be wrong.

Understand, most atheists are not atheists because we've rejected God. Most of us are atheists because we are simply not convinced Christianity is true.

---

Sounds like some good arguments for reformed theology!

*no one come at me; I don't want to talk about this, I just couldn't resist. Haha!*

If someone put a gun to your head and told you only one God was real, based on the history of humanity, pick one, which one would you pick?

I don't think you are being intellectually honest if you say you wouldn't pick the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

To put it in another way, if you can make a legitimate case for any other God to be more likely to be true, please make it.

Quote:

---

How do you know this?

---

2,000 years of world history.

Quote:

---

. . . . So, maybe you are wrong also?

---

Certainly a possibility. You also could be wrong. Maybe we are both wrong. Maybe everyone is wrong. Maybe.

Quote:

---

My perception is that the vast majority of religious people find it exceptionally easy to wholly discount and wave off the religious experience of other religions as 'wrong' while considering it absurd that anyone could possibly deny their own.

---

I'm not sure you are in any place to declare what the vast majority of people think. Sounds pretty presumptuous.

I personally think they probably are having authentic experiences. I venture to guess an entity capable of creating universes understands our limitations and personal filters exceptionally well, and isn't impeded by them when seeking relational experiences with them.

This isn't to say that I believe there isn't A truth, and spreading that truth has value. You can grow crops without a manual. People have been doing so for thousands of years. That doesn't mean the exceptional agricultural knowledge provided by our good university is without value.

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

Sure, but everyone who sacrificed their firstborn in a drought that didn't bring rain were smart enough, no? There's some pretty basic cause/effect that even early people without knowledge could still figure out. So how do such things persist if it was simply an explanation?

---

People still pray even though it's statistically equivalent to doing nothing.

---

There are a number of people who have had inexplicable recoveries from non-reversible physical conditions after praying. Sure, there are plenty who don't, but you claiming prayer is statistically equivalent to doing nothing is based off a study where the only people studied are ones without inexplicable outcomes. When you remove those from the start, it's hard to call that a fair study.

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

Sure, but everyone who sacrificed their firstborn in a drought that didn't bring rain were smart enough, no? There's some pretty basic cause/effect that even early people without knowledge could still figure out. So how do such things persist if it was simply an explanation?

---

People still pray even though it's statistically equivalent to doing nothing.

---

Only if you assume God exists to give you your every desire. Which, again, goes back to religions or Stone Age people are stupid and can't figure out the numbers game. Edit: or perhaps you have mistakenly believed that prayer exists only for that reason. Can you present your argument in a way that allows for human knowledge and intelligence at your own level to interact with such things?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Certainly a possibility. You also could be wrong. Maybe we are both wrong. Maybe everyone is wrong. Maybe.

---

Agreed. And given that my position is one of agnosticism, you could say that its almost a certainty that I am 'wrong' - at least in the sense that 'I don't know' counts as not being right.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure you are in any place to declare what the vast majority of people think. Sounds pretty presumptuous.

I personally think they probably are having authentic experiences. I venture to guess an entity capable of creating universes understands our limitations and personal filters exceptionally well, and isn't impeded by them when seeking relational experiences with them.

This isn't to say that I believe there isn't A truth, and spreading that truth has value. You can grow crops without a manual. People have been doing so for thousands of years. That doesn't mean the exceptional agricultural knowledge provided by our good university is without value.

---

I think it would be presumptuous if I hadn't said 'It is my perception. . . . '.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting something like the multiple paths to God idea or not. I think an argument could made that what we observe in the world better fits with such a God. A lot of people on this planet care about what is true and are simply doing and trying their best. And this leads us down different paths. There is something appealing about the idea that God cares less about the specifics about what we believe and more about whether we are trying. It is also probably dangerous to form opinions about God based on what we find appealing.

Interesting question. Personally I'd lean towards the god of the Deists rather than anything Christian. I fail to see how that is intellectually dishonest as your post insists it would be.

As for the greater topic of why there are so many religions, I suspect that it's a result of the way our minds have evolved. We're very good at finding patterns, so much so that we see them even when they aren't there. Say you're watching an Aggie football game which we're unfortunately losing and you turn it off to go do something else. Then you see a notification that we've come back and tied the game. Do you turn it back on or do you listen to that voice in your head reminding you they only started playing better when you stopped watching?

I think people use that kind of mindset in a lot of ways, not just sports. If thing A happens before thing B then we sometimes jump to the conclusion that thing B happened because of thing A. Religion is just the ultimate expression of that.

If you were the ruler of a world, and, you and your excommunicado pals were hell bent on deceiving that world, how many religions would you have?

It seems we have an innate desire to worship or believe in something bigger than ourselves. Even if it's not a god or religion we like to attach ourselves to some sort of big meaning or purpose.

The Banned said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

Sure, but everyone who sacrificed their firstborn in a drought that didn't bring rain were smart enough, no? There's some pretty basic cause/effect that even early people without knowledge could still figure out. So how do such things persist if it was simply an explanation?

---

People still pray even though it's statistically equivalent to doing nothing.

---

There are a number of people who have had inexplicable recoveries from non-reversible physical conditions after praying. Sure, there are plenty who don't, but you claiming prayer is statistically equivalent to doing nothing is based off a study where the only people studied are ones without inexplicable outcomes. When you remove those from the start, it's hard to call that a fair study.

---

This sounds like a case of "The God Of The Gaps". There are (and always has been) gaps in our understanding of the physical world. As we advance in our knowledge, some gaps get filled in, some filled gaps open again, and some gaps remain. Our desire to find the reason for events led us to assign gaps in our knowledge to god.

In the ancient world, leprosy was believed to be of supernatural origins. We now know that it is a bacterial infection. It is not supernatural, it is completely natural. That gap in our knowledge was initially filled by god but later was replaced by a provable scientific explanation.

Unexpected recovery after praying may be the result of divine intervention, but it could also be something completely natural that we don't yet understand. Given that there have been so many instances where the original divine explanation has been replaced with provable scientific explanations, it seems much more likely to me that these unexpected recoveries aren't divine.

TPS_Report said:

---

The Banned said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

Sure, but everyone who sacrificed their firstborn in a drought that didn't bring rain were smart enough, no? There's some pretty basic cause/effect that even early people without knowledge could still figure out. So how do such things persist if it was simply an explanation?

---

People still pray even though it's statistically equivalent to doing nothing.

---

There are a number of people who have had inexplicable recoveries from non-reversible physical conditions after praying. Sure, there are plenty who don't, but you claiming prayer is statistically equivalent to doing nothing is based off a study where the only people studied are ones without inexplicable outcomes. When you remove those from the start, it's hard to call that a fair study.

---

This sounds like a case of "The God Of The Gaps". There are (and always has been) gaps in our understanding of the physical world. As we advance in our knowledge, some gaps get filled in, some filled gaps open again, and some gaps remain. Our desire to find the reason for events led us to assign gaps in our knowledge to god.

In the ancient world, leprosy was believed to be of supernatural origins. We now know that it is a bacterial infection. It is not supernatural, it is completely natural. That gap in our knowledge was initially filled by god but later was replaced by a provable scientific explanation.

Unexpected recovery after praying may be the result of divine intervention, but it could also be something completely natural that we don't yet understand. Given that there have been so many instances where the original divine explanation has been replaced with provable scientific explanations, it seems much more likely to me that these unexpected recoveries aren't divine.

---

Nothing you've posted solves causation and refutes the premise. You're just connecting a chain of events and implying that it's there somewhere, "because". What caused the bacteria? What caused that? And so on and so forth…

Edit: also, nothing precludes the natural world from 'folding in' the supernatural. For example, the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary sets off a chain of natural events (pregnancy). That doesn't refute the supernatural cause..

Modern miracles require plausible deniability.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I love how the people who don't pray and have zero faith always act like experts in something they have zero experience with.

---

Presumed facts are false. And even without them it's not like it's a secret what people pray for. Now try and circle back and actually see that a large number of the prayers people pray would leave evidence if the answer wasn't always no.

The Banned said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

Sure, but everyone who sacrificed their firstborn in a drought that didn't bring rain were smart enough, no? There's some pretty basic cause/effect that even early people without knowledge could still figure out. So how do such things persist if it was simply an explanation?

---

People still pray even though it's statistically equivalent to doing nothing.

---

There are a number of people who have had inexplicable recoveries from non-reversible physical conditions after praying. Sure, there are plenty who don't, but you claiming prayer is statistically equivalent to doing nothing is based off a study where the only people studied are ones without inexplicable outcomes. When you remove those from the start, it's hard to call that a fair study.

---

Only in things that regularly randomly heal in ways we don't understand. Not one instance of an amputee healing. Not one individual who survives prion disease or rabies outside the window where meds work or sever radiation poisoning. Why do these conditions conquer prayer?

AGC said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

The Banned said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

Sure, but everyone who sacrificed their firstborn in a drought that didn't bring rain were smart enough, no? There's some pretty basic cause/effect that even early people without knowledge could still figure out. So how do such things persist if it was simply an explanation?

---

People still pray even though it's statistically equivalent to doing nothing.

---

There are a number of people who have had inexplicable recoveries from non-reversible physical conditions after praying. Sure, there are plenty who don't, but you claiming prayer is statistically equivalent to doing nothing is based off a study where the only people studied are ones without inexplicable outcomes. When you remove those from the start, it's hard to call that a fair study.

---

This sounds like a case of "The God Of The Gaps". There are (and always has been) gaps in our understanding of the physical world. As we advance in our knowledge, some gaps get filled in, some filled gaps open again, and some gaps remain. Our desire to find the reason for events led us to assign gaps in our knowledge to god.

In the ancient world, leprosy was believed to be of supernatural origins. We now know that it is a bacterial infection. It is not supernatural, it is completely natural. That gap in our knowledge was initially filled by god but later was replaced by a provable scientific explanation.

Unexpected recovery after praying may be the result of divine intervention, but it could also be something completely natural that we don't yet understand. Given that there have been so many instances where the original divine explanation has been replaced with provable scientific explanations, it seems much more likely to me that these unexpected recoveries aren't divine.

---

Nothing you've posted solves causation and refutes the premise. You're just connecting a chain of events and implying that it's there somewhere, "because". What caused the bacteria? What caused that? And so on and so forth…

Edit: also, nothing precludes the natural world from 'folding in' the supernatural. For example, the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary sets off a chain of natural events (pregnancy). That doesn't refute the supernatural cause..

---

Correct. That's what "gaps" is referring to. Gaps in our knowledge. Just because we don't know, doesn't automatically mean "God did it". And just because I believe there is an unknown scientific reason for something doesn't automatically mean "There is no God". However, given there are numerous instances where religious explanations are overturned by science (earth is the center of the universe as an example) and I'm not aware of any scientific discovery being overturned by religion, a trend analysis should lead one to assume a natural cause over a supernatural one.

Edit: Forgot to finish my sentence. D'oh!

AGC said:

---

Nothing you've posted solves causation and refutes the premise. You're just connecting a chain of events and implying that it's there somewhere, "because". What caused the bacteria? What caused that? And so on and so forth…

---

You could take the infinite regress approach to anything and everything. Turtles all the way down. It helps form the basis of the contingency argument. I don't totally discard the contingency argument for God, but at the end of the day it requires you to swallow a difficult presupposition like the idea that the contingent entities require an external explanation that is outside of the law of contingency. Or that the material universe itself cannot itself cannot be the thing that is necessary.

Its never sat well with me because it feels like we're solving the problem of causation by inventing something that violates the law of causation and is thus self defeating. Or that it solves the problem of causation by inventing something (an entity outside of causation) that is an even bigger mystery that infinite regress.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I love how the people who don't pray and have zero faith always act like experts in something they have zero experience with.

---

Presumed facts are false. And even without them it's not like it's a secret what people pray for. Now try and circle back and actually see that a large number of the prayers people pray would leave evidence if the answer wasn't always no.

---

But many times the answer has been "yes." We have mountains of such evidence.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I love how the people who don't pray and have zero faith always act like experts in something they have zero experience with.

---

Presumed facts are false. And even without them it's not like it's a secret what people pray for. Now try and circle back and actually see that a large number of the prayers people pray would leave evidence if the answer wasn't always no.

---

But many times the answer has been "yes." We have mountains of such evidence.

---

Not in a way that shows up statistically or empirically or different from say a Muslim prayer or others. Not in a way that is discernible from chance. I gave some examples above that would qualify. Why never for those?

What is chance? You use the term as if it has explanatory powers.

It does. We use chance as a proxy for deterministic processes too complex or chaotic for exact predictions or indeterministic events that are still predictable statistically. So when we flip a coin, and you pray for heads and your prayer is answered 50% of the time why should I be surprised?

So you feel like we have enough data on the billions of prayers made daily to confidently assess them?

I've analyzed the studies on prayer and found them to be filled with faulty premises. Perhaps you found them more convincing.

I thought my question kind of implied a personal God that actually desired worship. I don't think a deist God would be applicable.

In short yes. If there was a religion whose prayers were particularly powerful or effective we would have noticed by now.

Does god have something against amputees?

TPS_Report said:

---

The Banned said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

Sure, but everyone who sacrificed their firstborn in a drought that didn't bring rain were smart enough, no? There's some pretty basic cause/effect that even early people without knowledge could still figure out. So how do such things persist if it was simply an explanation?

---

People still pray even though it's statistically equivalent to doing nothing.

---

There are a number of people who have had inexplicable recoveries from non-reversible physical conditions after praying. Sure, there are plenty who don't, but you claiming prayer is statistically equivalent to doing nothing is based off a study where the only people studied are ones without inexplicable outcomes. When you remove those from the start, it's hard to call that a fair study.

---

This sounds like a case of "The God Of The Gaps". There are (and always has been) gaps in our understanding of the physical world. As we advance in our knowledge, some gaps get filled in, some filled gaps open again, and some gaps remain. Our desire to find the reason for events led us to assign gaps in our knowledge to god.

In the ancient world, leprosy was believed to be of supernatural origins. We now know that it is a bacterial infection. It is not supernatural, it is completely natural. That gap in our knowledge was initially filled by god but later was replaced by a provable scientific explanation.

Unexpected recovery after praying may be the result of divine intervention, but it could also be something completely natural that we don't yet understand. Given that there have been so many instances where the original divine explanation has been replaced with provable scientific explanations, it seems much more likely to me that these unexpected recoveries aren't divine.

---

The claim was that prayer is statistically equivalent to doing nothing. I'm showing that prayer can and does help in some cases. Whether that be God or a humans inadvertently unlocking some unknown Wolverine power is downstream of recognizing that prayer and doing nothing are not equivalent.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

The world can be a scary place. There is comfort in having an explanation for why things are they way they are, even if it is wishful thinking.

---

How is this different from saying Stone Age people were stupid and didn't know how the world works?

---

They weren't stupid, they just didn't access to knowledge.

---

Sure, but everyone who sacrificed their firstborn in a drought that didn't bring rain were smart enough, no? There's some pretty basic cause/effect that even early people without knowledge could still figure out. So how do such things persist if it was simply an explanation?

---

People still pray even though it's statistically equivalent to doing nothing.

---

There are a number of people who have had inexplicable recoveries from non-reversible physical conditions after praying. Sure, there are plenty who don't, but you claiming prayer is statistically equivalent to doing nothing is based off a study where the only people studied are ones without inexplicable outcomes. When you remove those from the start, it's hard to call that a fair study.

---

Only in things that regularly randomly heal in ways we don't understand. Not one instance of an amputee healing. Not one individual who survives prion disease or rabies outside the window where meds work or sever radiation poisoning. Why do these conditions conquer prayer?

---

There is a report of a farmer back in the 1600s having an amputated limb reattached, but I doubt that will clear your threshold due to age of the report.

Not prion disease, but a nun was cured of Parkinson's disease (which you know is incurable) back in 2006/07.

I'm also not sure why every single disease/issue needs to be cured at every event of a prayer as if God is a genie at our beckon call. I think if you're honest it wouldn't matter is prion, rabies or amputees were healed today. You'd likely default right back to "we don't know what happened, but there has to be a natural explanation". That's fine. You don't have to believe in the supernatural. Just don't fully exclude it as a possibility and then ask for evidence that it exists. It's a worthless endeavor for both of us.

Limbs re-attached is something that happens with a doctor. But never regrown.

The issue you have here is we DO have very clear areas where god appears powerless or indifferent. That's extremely difficult to justify given your argument for miraculous healing through prayer.

The examples I gave are important because they WOULD be something that would give me immediate pause if it's something that 100% kills people except in specific instances of miraculous prayers being answered.

Your presumption is ai would dismiss anything. That's isn't the case. This presents a real issue for your position and you haven't really even attempted to tackle it.

I would love to have miracles as something real. I'd love for people who are afflicted these ways to at least have some chance. I'd love for a god who loves us enough to heal us.

And again I'm not asking for "every" anything. I'm asking you why we have these specific scenarios where the answer is ALWAYS no.

The Banned said:

---

There is a report of a farmer back in the 1600s having an amputated limb reattached, but I doubt that will clear your threshold due to age of the report.

Not prion disease, but a nun was cured of Parkinson's disease (which you know is incurable) back in 2006/07.

I'm also not sure why every single disease/issue needs to be cured at every event of a prayer as if God is a genie at our beckon call. I think if you're honest it wouldn't matter is prion, rabies or amputees were healed today. You'd likely default right back to "we don't know what happened, but there has to be a natural explanation". That's fine. You don't have to believe in the supernatural. Just don't fully exclude it as a possibility and then ask for evidence that it exists. It's a worthless endeavor for both of us.

---

I don't want to appear to be piling on, but I wanted to add something.

We live in a world where there are many different beliefs and many claims about those beliefs. Because they make contradictory claims, we all must parse through the data and claims and decide what is real and what is not. We have to be skeptical. The alternative is that we believe the first thing offered to us or we fall victim to some 'snake oil' type religion.

When it comes to the power of prayer, I think it becomes difficult to evaluate unless you have extremely clear claims about what prayer will or will not do. If prayer is not meant to be transactional, then it becomes difficult to set up studies to test cause and effect of prayer. There are studies, for example, that examine people that do / do not pray for help before surgery which suggests no difference in outcome. But, maybe this study mis-understands the nature of prayer as being transactional.

Anecdotal stories are interesting, but again, how do you evaluate a claim that a Christian was healed of an illness after prayer versus a claim that a Hindu was healed of an illness after prayer. The evidences are identical. To believe in one and not the other is just an exercise in bias. Again, what is the mechanism by which we can insert the data on Hindu miracles and Christian miracles and determine what is real? If that mechanism is faith and personal experience, then claims about the power of prayer becomes something like opinion.

Another option is that God listens to prayers and helps . . . but not always in the manner in which is expected or predicted. An example of this would be like the allegorical story of the guy stuck on his roof during a flood praying for God to help him. And as boats and rescue workers and helicopters all come to rescue him, but he rejects them because he has faith that God will rescue him. Then he dies and goes to heaven and asks God why he didn't help with the rescue, to which God says "I sent boats and helicopters and rescue teams!!'. The point to make here is that if you take the position that God helps in unexpected ways, then there is no way to objectively evaluate the power of prayer. Believing that God helps in exactly the manner that He determines we need help is the ultimate in confirmation bias. If God doesn't help, its proof we didn't need it. If God helps, then its proof that God helps. If God helps in different ways, then its proof that God helps in different ways.

I'm not saying any of the above applies to you. I just want to explain the dilemma as clearly as I can. I am not aware of controlled, reviewed, repeatable, predictable studies that show praying causes 'x'. And again, maybe thats because such a study fundamentally misunderstands how prayer works. So, what is the correct study? And if there is not a scientific study that is appropriate, don't we have to admit that the power of prayer is purely belief / faith / opinion and not something arguable and demonstrable?

Oh brother. I'm tailoring the question around reality and the context of the "how could you possibly choose" objection posed by atheists. I'm also noting that the most likely God to actually exists is also worshipped by Muslims and Jews, so you are arguing against your own preconceived notions in most of your posts.

If Budhism is right God doesn't exist and the question is irrelevant.
If you want to make the case for a Pantheon please do so.

I've spent my lifetime studying other religions. I've never for once presumed everyone was secretly Christian. So basically everything you said was 100% false.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Limbs re-attached is something that happens with a doctor. But never regrown.

The issue you have here is we DO have very clear areas where god appears powerless or indifferent. That's extremely difficult to justify given your argument for miraculous healing through prayer.

The examples I gave are important because they WOULD be something that would give me immediate pause if it's something that 100% kills people except in specific instances of miraculous prayers being answered.

Your presumption is ai would dismiss anything. That's isn't the case. This presents a real issue for your position and you haven't really even attempted to tackle it.

I would love to have miracles as something real. I'd love for people who are afflicted these ways to at least have some chance. I'd love for a god who loves us enough to heal us.

And again I'm not asking for "every" anything. I'm asking you why we have these specific scenarios where the answer is ALWAYS no.

---

This limb was amputated two years prior, so it's not just another reattachment.

There is Jeanna Griese that survived full blown rabies back in 2004. Her parent chalk it up to prayer and call it miraculous. The treatment credited to helping her has not helped anyone else survive and is now considered ineffective. I would guess you'd say that there is a natural explanation for that we haven't figured out yet instead of agreeing with the parents? This is one of your always scenarios. What do you think?

I get where you're coming from and I agree that prayer is not truly a testable thing. And even if we could create a fool proof study of prayer working, I assume you'd agree it still can't necessarily be attributed to God. Maybe the person was able to reach a state of human tranquility through prayer that allowed the human body to rapidly heal in ways it normally doesn't. There could be any number of other natural hypotheses.

I'm ok with agreeing scientifically we aren't going to solve this. But even if we don't agree on what is causing the inexplicable recoveries, we can't say that pray is statically equivalent to "doing nothing".