"Evidence" for God

[trewq]

I like it how you delete most of my previous posts except the part that you can argue most against. Not only does that make me moderately vexed, but it proves that you can't hold your own ground in this debate and that you can't tell the difference between regular font and italicized font.

The way you set up this website is that you delete my account every time I make a post, so I'm forced to make a new one. Not only that, but I can't reply or quote in any of the already-made threads. The only thing I can do is make a new thread.

So I copy and paste the original message, occasionally cutting out tidbits here and there because I already discussed the issue presented in that particular paragraph, and put everything in italics so you know the difference between what you said and what I said. I make sure that whatever I cut out will still leave your words in their original context. You didn't really have a problem with that before, but the last two posts you did.

Honestly, I think that's fine, maybe it is confusing for you. What you could have done instead of deleting all except one sentence of my post, however, is put them in quotes for me since I could not do that myself (if that is at all possible). It would have taken up very little of your time and everyone would have their way.

Instead of doing that, however, you cut my post down so that the original message has completely vanished. That makes me quite annoyed. Most of my counter-arguments are being completely ignored.

I am, therefore, ending this debate here and now, and not just because I really don't want any more discrimination, and not just because I don't really want to deal with you anymore. You see, both of us are very adamant in what we think is true. In the end, nothing will have happened. I would still be an atheist and you would still be a Christian. If you look up the Nightline face-off on ABC, you will find just that result. The believers remain believers and the non-believers remain non-believers. I honestly feel quite stupid for even continuing this debate with you. I was being foolish. I did it even though I knew what the outcome was going to be.

If this debate has done anything, it has created an even greater rift and created more strife between the two factions. We really don't need this. Christians and atheists need to be united to move society forward. We may not like each other, but we must respect each other.

In moving toward that goal, you must first understand us. Understand who we are, what out philosophy is. Understand that we are not evil despite what your religion says. I beg you to dare to think for yourself, and not just to slap a label on us that Jesus and your god printed out for you. It isn't right, no matter who does it. Doing that creates disunity, which is bad under any circumstance.

Please understand that we want the best for society, we really do (or at least I do, I can't speak for everyone).

Please understand that I have thought my de-conversion process through. It literally took months to finally let go of Christianity. Please know that I felt what I thought to be hell within my heart through this entire process. It was slow, painful, excruciating even, to let go of my preconceived bias, but once I did, I felt freedom. I felt that Christianity was a prison that I had created for myself, and now I can believe whatever I see fit to believe. Please also understand that I am not attacking your religion when I say this. I am just giving you my story.

Last of all, please understand that we are human, just like you. We have hopes and dreams, just like you. We have goals, just like you. We get angry, frustruated, depressed, annoyed, and stressed, just like you. We have our own set of morals, just like you. We have out own philosphy and worldview, just like you. In fact, if you think about it, we aren't really that different. Only on the outside are we different. In essence, we are the same.

Please understand that.

[Churchwork]

I like it how you delete most of my previous posts except the part that you can argue most against. Not only does that make me moderately vexed, but it proves that you can't hold your own ground in this debate and that you can't tell the difference between regular font and italicized font.

You were warned many times to use quotes. Nothing gets deleted if you stop confusing the text between the poster and the person you are replying to. Obviously, something had to be done. None of your posts were deleted, but your last couple were shortened because you refused to change your ways. Sometimes you make mistakes and forget to use italics. That's why quotes are used. It is the standard protocol. Accept it. This takes humility.

The way you set up this website is that you delete my account every time I make a post, so I'm forced to make a new one. Not only that, but I can't reply or quote in any of the already-made threads. The only thing I can do is make a new thread.

You know we don't accept registrations from junk email providers, for there is no way to contact you afterward if need be. When you register, you are allowed to post or reply in the Introductions forums after you read the forum rules which takes 5 minutes for the clock to wind down. Once your account is approved, you can post in the other forums. You can reply and quote existing threads under Introduction, just not the other forums until your account is approved. The instructions are quite clear after you register and then confirm your email. I don't know how to make them any clearer.

So I copy and paste the original message, occasionally cutting out tidbits here and there because I already discussed the issue presented in that particular paragraph, and put everything in italics so you know the difference between what you said and what I said. I make sure that whatever I cut out will still leave your words in their original context. You didn't really have a problem with that before, but the last two posts you did.

Read Board Etiquette #9. No, I never liked it when people just use italics and assume we are suppose to know whose italics those are. By the way, when you read a book, a person might write, Churchwork said, "this or that" and it is often indented. It is just not there in italics without delineating who it is as you do it. Why do you hold to a lesser standard then common publishing?

Honestly, I think that's fine, maybe it is confusing for you. What you could have done instead of deleting all except one sentence of my post, however, is put them in quotes for me since I could not do that myself (if that is at all possible). It would have taken up very little of your time and everyone would have their way.

Several times I did put them in quotes for you and said so, but after several warnings telling you this, you still refused to do it. Don't you read the "Last edited...reason:" given at the bottom of each post when I have to edit a post?

Instead of doing that, however, you cut my post down so that the original message has completely vanished. That makes me quite annoyed. Most of my counter-arguments are being completely ignored.

That was necessary after several posts you still refuse to change your ways. You are free to post those same things again, if you use quotes. Don't you see when you refuse to do the right thing, there are consequences?

I am, therefore, ending this debate here and now, and not just because I really don't want any more discrimination, and not just because I don't really want to deal with you anymore. You see, both of us are very adamant in what we think is true. In the end, nothing will have happened. I would still be an atheist and you would still be a Christian. If you look up the Nightline face-off on ABC, you will find just that result. The believers remain believers and the non-believers remain non-believers. I honestly feel quite stupid for even continuing this debate with you. I was being foolish. I did it even though I knew what the outcome was going to be.

Don't run away because of your own negligence. You haven't been discriminated against. If you were, please show it. In the end, you have used your own belligerent behavior as an excuse to deny dealing with the issue before us and then blame in the process. I was never a believer before the age of 33, then I became a believer, so that destroys your theory. What you should have said was, you can't come to Christ unless God gives you the grace, and God won't give you the grace unless you come to Him with an honest heart. You are still being dishonest with yourself. Your reasoning is still flawed, and God is not giving you the grace to see how it is flawed, even after I spell it out to you. You still can find no naturalistic explanation for the resurrection, nor overturn the fact that nothing in nature happens all by itself. I watched the Nightline ABC face-off, and they are wrong. You can come to Christ. Don't believe Satan's lie you can't come to Christ.

If this debate has done anything, it has created an even greater rift and created more strife between the two factions. We really don't need this. Christians and atheists need to be united to move society forward. We may not like each other, but we must respect each other.

Since the rift is consummated in a Heaven and Hell, why be surprised by this? You can never be united as an atheist when you keep calling Jesus a liar, even though He fully proved Himself and that He created you. You ought not to respect liars and sinners who bear false witness. You can be respectful and courteous, but you don't have to respect such evilness.

In moving toward that goal, you must first understand us. Understand who we are, what out philosophy is. Understand that we are not evil despite what your religion says. I beg you to dare to think for yourself, and not just to slap a label on us that Jesus and your god printed out for you. It isn't right, no matter who does it. Doing that creates disunity, which is bad under any circumstance.

You are evil, for you reject God even though God proved His existence. Jesus destroyed the character of the Pharisees; so has your character been annihilated. The disunity is caused by you, for knowing God has existed from the beginning; therefore, realize you are the source of the problem. The only reason you refuse Christ is for the reason Jesus gave:

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3.19-21)

Please understand that we want the best for society, we really do (or at least I do, I can't speak for everyone).

Every man has a conscience and wants some good to some extent. That is hardly the issue, for what we are talking about is salvation. Even one little sin separates you from God and salvation is not by works, lest any man should boast. Unless you accept God's way of reconciliation back to Him, you will end up in Hell. Most assuredly! You're addressing the exponential progression of conscience, not the fact of there being an eternal separation from God at the end.

Please understand that I have thought my de-conversion process through. It literally took months to finally let go of Christianity. Please know that I felt what I thought to be hell within my heart through this entire process. It was slow, painful, excruciating even, to let go of my preconceived bias, but once I did, I felt freedom. I felt that Christianity was a prison that I had created for myself, and now I can believe whatever I see fit to believe. Please also understand that I am not attacking your religion when I say this. I am just giving you my story.

You were never converted in the first place, for the Bible teaches once-saved-always-saved. In other words, you need to let go of your mistaken assumptions. Christianity is a prison to the unsaved such as yourself when you live a lie thinking you are saved when you are not and that fact of your foretaste of Hell even now before you are eventually resurrected to live out eternity in Hell. Don't be surprised by this. Everything is as it should be! I have told you the truth.

Paul said, "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1.12). We, too, have believed and know the One in whom we are eternally secure. We, too, are fully persuaded that "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for [us], who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet. 1.3-5).

"For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11.29).

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand" (John 10.27-29).

Last of all, please understand that we are human, just like you. We have hopes and dreams, just like you. We have goals, just like you. We get angry, frustruated, depressed, annoyed, and stressed, just like you. We have our own set of morals, just like you. We have out own philosphy and worldview, just like you. In fact, if you think about it, we aren't really that different. Only on the outside are we different. In essence, we are the same.

Please understand that.

You are made in God's image just like me; you can never cease to exist. You are intrinsic value to God, not instrumental value. The only major difference between us at the end of the day is that you are going to Hell and I am going to the New City in the New Earth where Heaven and Earth will come together. In that sence, we are eternally different, for I am a child of God and you are child of Satan. That can't be a good thing for you. The Bible says one day we will no longer shed a tear for you, for you will be where you belong.

[Rewq]

Common publishing? This is an internet forum, not a publishing company. Nevertheless, I will admit that I may have made some mistakes in my italics use and will heed your request to be clearer.

[Nottheworld]

Make clear who you are addressing like in published books. Hopefully next time you use quotes. It's part of the Board Etiquette and main forum functions. It takes humility to give into reasonable requests, like God said to Adam, don't eat of the tree with the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, because God knew how man would misuse that information. It is not that God wouldn't want man to know, but all in good time! It's for your own good. You'll feel better when you are not being obstinate. It's also more considerate to others, who can read the information in a clearer format.

I am sure you have many issues with Scripture, but you are using a faulty approach trying to pick away at everything, which all have been addressed somewhere or another by Scholars and on these forums. They don't infringe on the main proof Jesus is God. In fact, the more you study apparent discrepancies, the more they convince you the Bible is inerrant, if you read with an open mind and not by your petty self. The reason you contend so hard against the Bible is because the proof is so solid. Before you think there is some discrepancy, do you find out what Christians or Christian scholars say? If you don't, you are just being narrow minded. For you should at least admit if the Bible is true you don't ready by the Holy Spirit because you don't have the Holy Spirit. If you don't read by the Holy Spirit you read by self and the evil spirit, logically speaking, so you twist and malign.

The Minimal Facts Approach says we will just use that data which almost all skeptical scholars agree on, and see if that points to the resurrection and deity of Christ. It does! (See the 12 facts above or below.)

It's not an argument from popularity, but because of the reasons they use why it is assured Jesus died on the cross and the disciples truly believe they saw Him resurrected. Since there is no way to explain this away naturalistically, you know Jesus is God and salvation is through Him. If you refuse His atonement, then God has no other means by which you can be saved and will put you in Hell for all eternity.

This approach is corroborated by Jesus as well, because He said the number one proof of Him being God would be His resurrection. He would raise His temple up on the 3rd day. This is not just the prophecy of Jesus but also from centuries before the OT. Read Isaiah 53. Ancient Israel believed in resurrection as well.

Furthermore, you can't use the argument for late dating or legend, because when you compare the earliest known documents from the time of the events of all individuals in history, nobody is more well documented, nor well attested to in those documents. By this way, the difference is astounding. No person even remotely compares to Jesus Christ for the documentation that supports Him and His uniqueness and resurrection. So you see, God made sure this would be so!

And by all means, if you want to compare other claims for the uncreated Creator you may do so. Jesus even challenges you to do so and compare His unique details. Jesus always comes out on top and trumps any other by His very nature, attestation, extent to the material we have, and religio-historical context of 40 writers across 1500 years in complete agreement.

After you are wrong a hundred times about Jesus, or a thousand or even 10,000, it's time to receive Him into your life. How many times do you have to be wrong for heaven's sake and never are right even once? That's illogical and without evidence on your side. The number of times you have been wrong so far is getting absurd, yet you still hold out for the lie. I believe this is the very nature of someone going to Hell, that is to say, there is nothing God can do to convince you. Nothing! Therefore, you truly belong in Hell.

Alas, I am repeating myself! It's not that the truth is unreasonable, but it is unloved.

Praise the Lord!

[poiu]

This was a great inconvenience for me. I cannot use quotes at all unless I copy and paste the quote box.

[Nottheworld]

The evidences and reasoning:

1) Nature can't cause itself, because the evidence is trillions of causes and no evidence for something in nature happening all by itself. It requires a cause that is uncaused. That which is uncaused is what we call God. And the universe can't always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience, for mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does.

2) Who is God? Jesus. But why?

The evidence is the multiple attestation in various group settings of the eyewitnesses who said they saw Jesus resurrected. Group hallucinations are impossible. If you have no naturalistic explanation to explain away the data of the New Testament, a few secular sources who mention Jesus, early apologists and church fathers; then you don't even have to say it, but you are admitting Jesus is God.

The second generation apostles, called Apostolic fathers, such as Polycarp who was a student of John was taught by John that John saw Jesus resurrected; and Clement of Rome, another Apostolic father, was a student of the apostle Peter who said Peter taught him that Peter saw Jesus resurrected. Were Peter and John lying to their students?

When Peter, Paul, James and other Apostles were martyred for saying they saw Jesus resurrected, and Stephen a deacon, show me where in history people die for something they know is a lie? You need to stop killing my brain cells with your mindlessness and address the central issue - we call this the Minimal Facts Approach because it is not dependent on inerrancy of Scripture, just those few things most skeptical scholars agree on:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

In The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel (p. 112), Mike Licona said, "[Gary] Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by the large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts."

The only possibly conclusion for this evidence is that logically Jesus was resurrected and therefore, He must be God just like He said He was.

The most dependable non-Christian sources such as the the Talmud, Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian and Mara Bar-Serapion all testify to Jesus having lived and died on the cross and said there existed a claim about Jesus being resurrected from the dead and being God.

12 Groups saw Jesus Resurrected

Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from just one person to 500 people:

1) Mary Magdalene (Mark 16.9-11; John 20.11-18), Peter in Jerusalem (Luke 24.34; 1 Cor. 15.5), Jesus' brother (insider skeptic) James (1 Cor. 15.7).
2) the other women at the tomb (Matthew 28.8-10).
3) The two travelers on the road (Mark 16.12,13; Luke 24.13-34).
4) Ten disciples behind closed doors (Mark 16.14; Luke 24.35-43; John 20.19-25).
5) All the disciples, with Thomas (excluding Judas Iscariot) (John 20.26-31; 1 Cor. 15.5).
6) Seven disciples while fishing (John 21.1-14).
7) Eleven disciples on the mountain (Matthew 28.16-20).
8) A crowd of 500 "most of whom are still alive" at the time of Paul's writing (1 Cor. 15.6).
9) "Then to all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15.7) which includes the Twelve plus all the other apostles.
10) Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24.44-49).
11) Those who watched Jesus ascend to heaven (Mark 16.19,20; Luke 24.50-53; Acts 1.3-8).
12) Least of all Paul (outsider skeptic) with others present as though he was not living in the proper time (1 Cor. 15.8-9; Gal. 1.13-16; Acts 9.1-8, 22.9, read all of chapters 22 and 26; 13.30-37; 1 Cor. 15.10-20; Gal. 2.1-10).

For further consideration, observe these points:

• Luke has no problem between Paul's appearance and those made to the disciples in Luke 24, Acts 1.1-11. Luke records both types of appearances of Jesus to the disciples and to Paul.
• "Last of all he was seen of me also" (1 Cor. 15.8).
• "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9.1).
• Others saw the light and heard the voice during Paul seeing Jesus bodily, however because Paul's experience was post-ascension, it may be slightly different.
• Evolution of a resurrection theory actually devolved from the accounts of the 40 days with the disciples to when Paul saw Jesus (Gal. 1.15-16).
• "To reveal His Son in me" (Gal. 1.16,18) took three years following the Damascus road experience. Don't mistake this portion as being the bodily appearance.
• "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts 9.7). This presumes that Paul saw the man.
• Many years after Paul saw the vision on the Damascus road, he testified, "Wherefore . . . I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision" (Acts 26.19).
• Paul reports knowing some of the disciples personally who had seen Jesus resurrected including Peter, James, and John. Acts confirms this (Acts 9.26-30; 15.1-35). And Paul says in 1 Cor. 15.11 that whether "it was I or they, this is what we preach," referring to the resurrection of Jesus.
• Altogether, there is Paul's writings, oral traditions in creeds, hymns and sermon summaries in various NT books, and writings of the early church fathers such as Polycarp and Clement of Rome who personally knew the Apostles, John and Peter.

Now if so many people saw Jesus resurrected, is it really so hard to believe the saved will be resurrected at the consummation of the age of the dispensation of grace-the end of the mystery age of the church?

[DD2014]

The evidence was already given which you couldn't overturn, but nor do you accept the evidence, showing your mind is shut. Double blind studies have been done proving prayer works. But I am not here to discuss that with you. I am here for you to see you can't disprove the natural proof of the uncreated Creator and the resurrection of Jesus.

Nice try;)

Prayer Does Not Work. Sorry.
Once again, it's all in your mind...

Prayer & Healing

The Verdict is in and the Results are Null

by Michael Shermer
eSkeptic
April 2006

In a long-awaited comprehensive scientific study on the effects of intercessory prayer on the health and recovery of 1,802 patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery in six different hospitals, prayers offered by strangers had no effect. In fact, contrary to common belief, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications such as abnormal heart rhythms, possibly the result of anxiety caused by learning that they were being prayed for and thus their condition was more serious than anticipated.

The study, which cost $2.4 million (most of which came from the John Templeton Foundation), was begun almost a decade ago and was directed by Harvard University Medical School cardiologist Dr. Herbert Benson and published in The American Heart Journal, was by far the most rigorous and comprehensive study on the effects of intercessory prayer on the health and recovery of patients ever conducted. In addition to the numerous methodological flaws in the previous research corrected for in the Benson study, Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of the forthcoming book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, explained:

The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion.

The 1,802 patients were divided into three groups, two of which were prayed for by members of three congregations: St. Paul’s Monastery in St. Paul, Minnesota; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Massachusetts; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City. The prayers were allowed to pray in their own manner, but they were instructed to include the following phrase in their prayers: “for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications.” Prayers began the night before the surgery and continued daily for two weeks after. Half the prayer-recipient patients were told that they were being prayed for while the other half were told that they might or might not receive prayers. The researchers monitored the patients for 30 days after the operations.

Results showed no statistically significant differences between the prayed-for and non-prayed-for groups. Although the following findings were not statistically significant, 59% of patients who knew that they were being prayed for suffered complications, compared with 51% of those who were uncertain whether they were being prayed for or not; and 18% in the uninformed prayer group suffered major complications such as heart attack or stroke, compared with 13% in the group that received no prayers.

This study is particularly significant because Herbert Benson has long been sympathetic to the possibility that intercessory prayer can positively influence the health of patients. His team’s rigorous methodologies overcame the numerous flaws that called into question previously published studies. The most commonly cited study in support of the connection between prayer and healing is:

Randolph C. Byrd, “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population,” Southern Medical Journal 81 (1998): 826–829.

The two best studies on the methodological problems with prayer and healing include the following:

Richard Sloan, E. Bagiella, and T. Powell. 1999. “Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine,” The Lancet. Feb. 20, Vol. 353: 664–667; and,

John T. Chibnall, Joseph M. Jeral, Michael Cerullo. 2001. “Experiments on Distant Intercessory Prayer.” Archives of Internal Medicine, Nov. 26, Vol. 161: 2529–2536. www.archinternmed.com

The most significant flaws in all such studies include the following:

Fraud
In 2001, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine published a study by three Columbia University researchers claiming that prayer for women undergoing in-vitro fertilization resulted in a pregnancy rate of 50%, double that of women who did not receive prayer. Media coverage was extensive. ABC News medical correspondent Dr. Timothy Johnson, for example, reported, “A new study on the power of prayer over pregnancy reports surprising results; but many physicians remain skeptical.” One of those skeptics was a University of California Clinical Professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics named Bruce Flamm, who not only found numerous methodological errors in the experiment, but also discovered that one of the study’s authors, Daniel Wirth (AKA “John Wayne Truelove”), is not an M.D., but an M.S. in parapsychology who has since been indicted on felony charges for mail fraud and theft, for which he pled guilty. The other two authors have refused comment, and after three years of inquires from Flamm the journal removed the study from its website and Columbia University launched an investigation.

Lack of Controls
Many of these studies failed to control for such intervening variables as age, sex, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, marital standing, degree of religiosity, and the fact that most religions have sanctions against such insalubrious behaviors as sexual promiscuity, alcohol and drug abuse, and smoking. When such variables are controlled for, the formerly significant results disappear. One study on recovery from hip surgery in elderly women failed to control for age; another study on church attendance and illness recovery did not consider that people in poorer health are less likely to attend church; a related study failed to control for levels of exercise.

Outcome Differences
In one of the most highly publicized studies of cardiac patients prayed for by born-again Christians, 29 outcome variables were measured but on only six did the prayed-for group show improvement. In related studies, different outcome measures were significant. To be meaningful, the same measures need to be significant across studies, because if enough outcomes are measured some will show significant correlations by chance.

File-Drawer Problem
In several studies on the relationship between religiosity and mortality (religious people allegedly live longer), a number of religious variables were used, but only those with significant correlations were reported. Meanwhile, other studies using the same religiosity variables found different correlations and, of course, only reported those. The rest were filed away in the drawer of non-significant findings. When all variables are factored in together, religiosity and mortality show no relationship.

Operational Definitions
When experimenting on the effects of prayer, what, precisely, is being studied? For example, what type of prayer is being employed? (Are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, and Shaman prayers equal?) Who or what is being prayed to? (Are God, Jesus, and a universal life force equivalent?) What is the length and frequency of the prayer? (Are two 10-minute prayers equal to one 20-minute prayer?) How many people are praying and does their status in the religion matter? (Is one priestly prayer identical to ten parishioner prayers?) Most prayer studies either lack such operational definitions, or there is no consistency across studies in such definitions.

Theological Implications
The ultimate fallacy of all such studies is theological. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He should not need to be reminded or inveigled that someone needs healing. Scientific prayer makes God a celestial lab rat, leading to bad science and worse religion

[Churchwork]

In a long-awaited comprehensive scientific study on the effects of intercessory prayer on the health and recovery of 1,802 patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery in six different hospitals, prayers offered by strangers had no effect.

That would make sense since a far greater percentage of strangers are unregenerates. That is, they had the evil spirit in their spirits. Praying by the evil spirit is selfish. What is prayer? Praying is praying the will of God.

The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion.

I disagree. Just as you can do studies showing the unethicalness of atheism, you can prove prayer if genuine is healthy for your spirit, soul and body. Atheism is a belief system like a religion is. Atheism can even be called a religion because it is faith in something that there is no God.

The 1,802 patients were divided into three groups, two of which were prayed for by members of three congregations: St. Paul’s Monastery in St. Paul, Minnesota; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Massachusetts; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City. The prayers were allowed to pray in their own manner, but they were instructed to include the following phrase in their prayers: “for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications.” Prayers began the night before the surgery and continued daily for two weeks after. Half the prayer-recipient patients were told that they were being prayed for while the other half were told that they might or might not receive prayers. The researchers monitored the patients for 30 days after the operations.

This approach seems to have problems in several ways. The above groups are not Christians, but Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox which teach a person can lose salvation after being born-again, that a human being such as Mary was sinless, and other false teachings such as amillennialism which claims we are in the 1000 years now even though Jesus hasn't returned yet. They even add books to the 66 books of God's word and worship a pope and deny every Christian is a saint. That is just some of the problems. They are into man-rulership, not God-lead worship. Plus, forced prayer is not genuine prayer. It must come from the heart. You can pray for someone, but if it is not genuine, then it will produce no results or even be detrimental. Selfish prayer is not true prayer. The study was flawed from the outset. What it only proves is if your approach is unethical you will get results that match it.

The way the study should have been done was to find real Christians and determine if their prayers were genuine and not forced to observe their corresponding results whatever it was they prayed for, having recorded it soon after it was given. Spiritual life is spontaneous so if you are going to do a double blind study, it must maintain that genuine characteristic. You can still group various controls, but they must be on an individual basis. Like when someone comes out of a near death experience, you must record what he saw right after he comes out and then ensure there is no way he could have known the things that he said he saw.

His team’s rigorous methodologies overcame the numerous flaws that called into question previously published studies.

The problem was his approach was not genuine and ethical. So it doesn't negatively reflect on previous studies done. You know what they say, two sins don't make a right. Stating appropriate operational definitions are needed yet not abiding in that rule, shows the persons in charge of this study were being duplicitous. The Bible says, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).

Outcome Differences
In one of the most highly publicized studies of cardiac patients prayed for by born-again Christians, 29 outcome variables were measured but on only six did the prayed-for group show improvement. In related studies, different outcome measures were significant. To be meaningful, the same measures need to be significant across studies, because if enough outcomes are measured some will show significant correlations by chance.

I find this point faulty for several reasons. It is not clear the person doing the study knows what a born-again Christian is. Or that all studies measured true Christian prayer similarly. Nonetheless, it's nice to see there were some areas improved upon through prayer showing the power of prayer.

The ultimate fallacy of all such studies is theological. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He should not need to be reminded or inveigled that someone needs healing. Scientific prayer makes God a celestial lab rat, leading to bad science and worse religion

Don't think the purpose of prayer is to remind God. Rather it is to pray the will of God. So if you are doing God's will, no doubt, there shall be results. If you are thinking along God's thought, you will have results that are beneficial for nothing is better than God's way of doing things. God actually likes these studies, because they prove that prayer is real and effective if done according to His will and in agreement with His mind by the Holy Spirit.

You can do studies comparing different kinds of prayer such as genuine prayer praying the will of God by true born-again believers and prayers that do not conform to His will from people who are unregenerates or false Christians. The results will be obvious.

Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

[Churchwork]

Conclusion: these studies show faulty methodology. What does the Bible say?

"Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (James 5.16).

Notice prayer is ineffectual if man is not righteous and you do not confess your sins to one another. People want healing while they remain basked in their sin and selfishness. I don't see your studies properly reflecting this fact. Quite the contrary.

"Continued all night in prayer to God...continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving" (Luke 6.12; Col. 4.2).

"And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting" (Mark 9.29).

It looks like the studies you are clinging to are making one or more of several mistakes: 1) selfish, forced and not so genuine prayers; 2) lack of consecration in prayer; 3) from false Christians; 4) grandiose demands which are unrealistic.

Prayer is our communication with God, but how can you have communication with God if you reject the Son of God? Eternal life is not only eternal blessings but an ability to know God and communicate with Him through prayer and Him with you in your spirit and through His word.

I love how God trips you up at every turn when you try to out think Him or try to box Him in. God trumps your god any day which is really just your idol self.