"Evidence" for God

[rewq]

Christians don't consider this logic. We consider this some faultiness in his logic, obviously, since the logic didn't produce the result he expected.

Well, logically, if light isn't a particle then it has to be a wave, right? Nope. When scientists tried to observe which slit the light went through in the experiment, the light (get this), started behaving like a particle - it didn't form interference patterns. What?! This isn't possible! Well, the evidence, the data we collected from experiments, says otherwise.

Again, you are using faulty logic as evidenced by the result.

Number one: Einstein's logic was perfectly fine given what he knew at the time. Also, he actually thought these things through, just like he thought out the theory of Special Relativity (of which there is a good amount of evidence to back it up) He didn't just pull these things out of his rear end after being drunk all night.

Number two: You are missing the point. My point is that logic is worth nothing without evidence. This was simply an example.

You are assuming in your experiment that you were being logical, but obviously you weren't. Hence, the evidence you had for the logic was incorrect or how you applied that evidence logically. Either way, you had made some mistake.

Actually, I was being completely logical. Logic by definition is using what one currently knows to predict what will happen next. Science tells us that things usually aren't particles and waves at the same time, and it is baffling that light would behave in such a way.

If logic is a prediction, then it must come before the experiment is done. If it is formulated beforehand, it is not really a prediction. If you are saying what I think you are saying, you are implying that logic comes after the evidence is found.

Now compare this to the evidence for the uncreated Creator. There is nothing in nature that can happen all by itself; hence, the universe can't cause itself. If it can't cause itself, it requires a cause outside of itself that was always existing, for nobody puts forth any other possibility. The evidence and logic are found faultless. We must go with what we know, not with what we don't know, because we might never know things we don't know. That's no way to live.

Uncreated creator notwithstanding, you're logic here is perfect, I will admit that, but what you are doing here is hypothesizing what you think is real. You are predicting what you think will happen when/if an experiment is run. Any scientist will tell you that, in order to prove your hypothesis, you must gather evidence in the form of an experiment, or at the very least do some research in the field. Unless you do that, your claims for God will gain no ground.

So the atheist is presented the evidence, can't overturn, but still shuts his mind down anyway. The shutting your mind down process is a form of independency from God. Since you can't disprove the proof, you can still be independent of God by shutting your mind down to the information.

I think from what I've said here, I prove myself to be very open-minded. Despite the fact that I proclaim no belief in God, I will gladly accept any valid evidence you bring to the table. Do you want to do a double blind study on the effects of prayer to sick people? Do it! Publish your results, let the scientific community know of it, and make sure that the process can be repeated. If you do this and the collected data shows that prayer does, in fact, have a positive effect on hospitalized patients, there will be no doubt in my mind that there is a supreme being, whether that supreme being takes the form of the Christian God or not.

We don't say that. We say you can't disprove the proof given here. Since you have no evidence for these various other things, there is no reason to bring them up. You should at least have something to go on. What is an extraordinary claim is believing that the universe just happened all by itself or that it was always existing, for that violates the evidence of an exponential progression in conscience in which we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Why should the universe have a lesser standard from our immediate experiences?

I'm not saying that you say that. I'm saying that I have heard that argument before.

As to this argument "What is an extraordinary claim is believing that the universe just happened all by itself or that it was always existing...", any scientist will admit that we don't know everything and, you're right, it does defy logic. It is impossible to even begin to comprehend an infinite amount of time, given that the human mind can barely even comprehend the accepted age of the universe (about 13 billion years). But as I have said before is, you cannot fill in gaps of scientific evidence with God. It will never be accepted unless you can fin evidence.

Understand in order for God to preserve your free-will, He has to make Himself obscure enough for you to reject Him, but also clear enough to accept Him. He does both of these things.

You may not believe it, but I was once as Christian as they come, and the only thing that I didn't believe in was Sunday mass. ("But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." -Matthew 6:6)

At around age 16, I was beginning to waver in my beliefs. I figured if I searched for arguments for God using an unbiased eye (meaning I came up with arguments that didn't assume God existed beforehand), I thought I would pull out of this difficult time with my faith stronger than ever.

But even when I wanted to believe in God, he was still obscure enough to hide from me. I found no valid evidence for God.

You honestly have no idea how difficult it was for me to give up my faith. Heck, no one wants to give up the idea of an immortal soul, or the belief that, even if no one cares for you, someone is always there, but i knew i couldn't live a lie, which (with all due respect) was all Christianity was to me without God at least giving me a hint. Christianity isn't a lie for you, but it was for me.

If what you say is true, that God reveals himself to anyone who believes, I would still be a believer.

I don't know any Christians who talk like this. Perhaps it's just your imagination.

I know several outspoken atheists who get messages like these in their e-mail inboxes all the time. I'm thankful that most Christians don't talk this way, but the fact that some of them do is a really big problem. No one should talk like that to another human no matter how different they are. It isn't right in any sense.

You must agree though if the Bible is true and since you can't disprove the proof for God, then you are going to Hell.

(see above statements)

The reason why logic, evidence, Hell don't work is because the Bible says two things: 1) you are already condemned (that is, you have already made up your mind); 2) you refuse to come to God with an honest heart.

I had what you would define as an honest heart. I tried to come up with proof for God. I believed that blind faith was an ironic gift to give back to the supposed creator of human intelligence. That's why I cleared my mind of all preconceived bias before coming up with my proofs. If using my supposedly God-given gift of intelligence ends up sending me to hell then, with all due respect, I don't even want to be associated with that religion. I'm sorry for being so brutally honest, but that's the way I see it.

I also think it is a contradiction for you to be an atheist, for atheism says there is no God, and you admitted you said you couldn't disprove God's existence. You're actually agnostic which says God could exist, but doesn't think he has found evidence for God's existence.

If you use that logic, than I am also agnostic for the existence of leprechauns. I will say truthfully that there is no God until valid evidence can be presented to me, just as I will say truthfully that there are no leprechauns until valid evidence can be presented to me.

Basically, you are wrong in everything you say. This is the nature of your independency to God which separates you from Him and shall have for eternity in Hell.

You think I want to commit what you call sin? You think I don't want an afterlife? You are mistaken. Despite what Christians think, we actually want to be wrong. We want a God that will love everyone unconditionally. Though I cannot speak for everyone, I can certainly speak for myself when I say that that is what I stand for. It seems like atheists have been dehumanized to the point where we are worth no more than the common rat.

The only reason we think there is not a God is because there is no valid evidence. You may think that you're arguments are valid, but we don't. We have heard all of these arguments over and over, and every time we have the same answer. Run an experiment. Show us the data. That is how you convert an atheist.

[Nottheworld]

Well, logically, if light isn't a particle then it has to be a wave, right?

From different perspectives it can be seen as both. So how does that help you when you call Jesus a liar?

You are missing the point. My point is that logic is worth nothing without evidence. This was simply an example.

You're missing the point. Logic is evidence. The result was not produced because of something missing in the logic. There was some assumption that was inaccurate. An assumption is invalid evidence.

Actually, I was being completely logical. Logic by definition is using what one currently knows to predict what will happen next. Science tells us that things usually aren't particles and waves at the same time, and it is baffling that light would behave in such a way.

If you were being logical, then you would realize the result did not transpire because of some mistaken assumption. To hold to an assumption is illogical. Hence, you were not logical. Something can be a particle and a wave at the same time when viewed from different perspectives for it does exhibit such characteristics.

If logic is a prediction, then it must come before the experiment is done. If it is formulated beforehand, it is not really a prediction. If you are saying what I think you are saying, you are implying that logic comes after the evidence is found.

You can make your best guess based on what you know, but when you enter into new knowledge territory, often times you will later find you had made some mistake in your logic of what you were assuming. So adjust your thinking and accept what your mistaken assumptions were. When you are shown something in your thinking was wrong, accept it. Stop thinking you were still being logical. This takes humility.

Uncreated creator notwithstanding, you're logic here is perfect, I will admit that, but what you are doing here is hypothesizing what you think is real. You are predicting what you think will happen when/if an experiment is run. Any scientist will tell you that, in order to prove your hypothesis, you must gather evidence in the form of an experiment, or at the very least do some research in the field. Unless you do that, your claims for God will gain no ground.

We are not hypothesizing, but the evidence necessarily leads to the conclusion the Uncreated must exist Who created, because no other option exists. Evidence to support this is the resurrection of Jesus who said He always existed. Since man can't resurrect naturally, He must supernaturally be telling the truth.

I think from what I've said here, I prove myself to be very open-minded. Despite the fact that I proclaim no belief in God, I will gladly accept any valid evidence you bring to the table. Do you want to do a double blind study on the effects of prayer to sick people? Do it! Publish your results, let the scientific community know of it, and make sure that the process can be repeated. If you do this and the collected data shows that prayer does, in fact, have a positive effect on hospitalized patients, there will be no doubt in my mind that there is a supreme being, whether that supreme being takes the form of the Christian God or not.

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.

I'm not saying that you say that. I'm saying that I have heard that argument before.

Well I am a Christian and I don't know any Christians who say what you said, so the point is irrelevant.

As to this argument "What is an extraordinary claim is believing that the universe just happened all by itself or that it was always existing...", any scientist will admit that we don't know everything and, you're right, it does defy logic. It is impossible to even begin to comprehend an infinite amount of time, given that the human mind can barely even comprehend the accepted age of the universe (about 13 billion years). But as I have said before is, you cannot fill in gaps of scientific evidence with God. It will never be accepted unless you can fin evidence.

God doesn't fill gaps, but He is the necessary conclusion to the evidence logically speaking. The evidence He said is nature, that nature can't cause itself. Hence, one option is left: the Uncreated must exist Who is what we call God. Since no alternative is even challenging this necessity then it is decided.

You may not believe it, but I was once as Christian as they come, and the only thing that I didn't believe in was Sunday mass. ("But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." -Matthew 6:6)

At around age 16, I was beginning to waver in my beliefs. I figured if I searched for arguments for God using an unbiased eye (meaning I came up with arguments that didn't assume God existed beforehand), I thought I would pull out of this difficult time with my faith stronger than ever.

But even when I wanted to believe in God, he was still obscure enough to hide from me. I found no valid evidence for God.

You honestly have no idea how difficult it was for me to give up my faith. Heck, no one wants to give up the idea of an immortal soul, or the belief that, even if no one cares for you, someone is always there, but i knew i couldn't live a lie, which (with all due respect) was all Christianity was to me without God at least giving me a hint. Christianity isn't a lie for you, but it was for me.

If what you say is true, that God reveals himself to anyone who believes, I would still be a believer.

When you were praying, you were not actually born-again, for the Bible teaches once-saved-always-saved. Appreciate this logic.

"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).

You faded, so you were never born-again.

"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).

You were plucked. If you were truly a child of God no man is able to pluck you out of the Father's hand.

Accept the logic.

From you response it seems to me that the faith you entered into was done by first assuming God exists rather than letting God exist by the evidence. Christians come by way of evidence, non-assuming.

I never said God reveals Himself to anyone who believes. You believed but apparently God didn't reveal Himself to you. Christians don't believe that by our believing He reveals Himself to us, but rather, by Him revealing Himself to us we believe. Do you see the difference? One is based on evidence, whether personal experience, natural proofs, inability to disprove the resurrection or ontological evidence.

I know several outspoken atheists who get messages like these in their e-mail inboxes all the time. I'm thankful that most Christians don't talk this way, but the fact that some of them do is a really big problem. No one should talk like that to another human no matter how different they are. It isn't right in any sense.

I don't think any think like that. You are just imagining they do. Let it go. Perhaps that is just wishful thinking on your part and projecting some part of yourself onto them. You need evidence for your accusations.

I had what you would define as an honest heart. I tried to come up with proof for God. I believed that blind faith was an ironic gift to give back to the supposed creator of human intelligence. That's why I cleared my mind of all preconceived bias before coming up with my proofs. If using my supposedly God-given gift of intelligence ends up sending me to hell then, with all due respect, I don't even want to be associated with that religion. I'm sorry for being so brutally honest, but that's the way I see it.

I don't consider what you had to be an honest heart, because if it was, you would be once-saved-always-saved. Your entrance into what you thought was Christianity was a farce. Don't underestimate Satan's facsimile or counterfeit works. You even admitted it was blind faith. Christians refuse blind faith. You have a mistaken assumption which is not found in Scripture: "blind faith was an ironic gift." This is not gift, but you are testimony it is a curse upon you. Your intelligence tells you if nature can't cause itself, then nature must have a cause and the only available cause can be that which is uncreated Whom we call God. There is your proof a young child can understand. Stop fighting the truth.

If you use that logic, than I am also agnostic for the existence of leprechauns. I will say truthfully that there is no God until valid evidence can be presented to me, just as I will say truthfully that there are no leprechauns until valid evidence can be presented to me.

To repeat, you need some suggested possibility for leprechauns, but you don't have it. But you do have strong evidence for God's existence because nature can't first cause itself, so the uncreated must exist. Where do leprechauns claim to always have existed? Even if they did all you need do is compare them to the uncreated claims of God of the Bible to know God of the Bible easily trumps leprechauns.

Ask yourself why you don't accept the evidence that nature always has a cause; hence, the universe can't cause itself.

You think I want to commit what you call sin? You think I don't want an afterlife? You are mistaken. Despite what Christians think, we actually want to be wrong. We want a God that will love everyone unconditionally. Though I cannot speak for everyone, I can certainly speak for myself when I say that that is what I stand for. It seems like atheists have been dehumanized to the point where we are worth no more than the common rat.

You will have an after life, but it will be in Hell. Christians consider you to be made in God's image. You are highly valued to God. You are intrinsic value to God, not instrumental value to some naturalistic evolutionary chain. In righteousness of God, He will put you in Hell for eternity because that is what you want. The evidence is given which you can't disprove which is the perfect proof for God.

The only reason we think there is not a God is because there is no valid evidence. You may think that you're arguments are valid, but we don't. We have heard all of these arguments over and over, and every time we have the same answer. Run an experiment. Show us the data. That is how you convert an atheist.

The only reason you don't think there is a God despite the evidence is because without a God there are no consequences eternally for you so it really doesn't matter what you do, so you think. To think like this comes from a darkened mind and dead spirit. That's why you need to be regenerated so God can renew your thinking.

Realize I was unsaved just as you are now. Now that I am on the other side of eternity, I look back at you at how you will be saved. You will be saved when you realize if nature can't cause itself, then God caused it, because there is no other explanation, never has been and never will be. It really is that simple. The only think you need is humble acceptance of the evidence, of its logic. If God made it more difficult than that, then only the smart people could get saved. "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10.34).

Get out of your head and come into your inner man. Reading through from chapter 1 to 5, by the 5th chapter you will be born-again. Let's put your honest heart to the test.

[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.