The power of prayers vs. The Divine plan

To Ringokid:Hey! Welcome to the site. I'm kinda new as well, and it's always good to have someone welcome your participation in a new site, so I'll do the honour this time.A couple of issues I hope to sort out before I read in-depth into the site you have linked to:
1) Does that site refer to a Chritian God, or any God? It did refer to the bible towards the end, but "God" is a vague term to be used when the world is saturated with an abundance of different faiths.
2) Did you check some of the methodology? Don't they seem a little suspicious (re: dodgey) to you? Here's a quote:"A San Francisco hospital used a computer to divide three hundred and ninety three coronary care patients into two groups. One group was prayed for, the other was not."Which San Francisco hospital? How did the computer divide the patients? How do you measure "prayed for"?And this quote:"Significant results were achieved in only about fifty percent of the experiments."How significant? To what degree of significance? How was it calculated? Fifty-percent is hardly significant when the usual standards for degree of confidence is 95%! (That is, 5% the result could have occured by chance)3) There is no time or dates specified for any of the experiments, nor journal names. Some experiments did not even include experimenter names. Moreover, I see no reference section nor the usual quotation formats used in that site (except for the bible reference(s)). I deduce from this that the author did not intend for the article to be used as a reliable source of verifiable information, and hence should not be taken as such.
4) And so, may I ask where it has been cited in popular scientific journals? Has it been peer reviewed?In response to your comment that: "If the purpose of prayer is to comfort, uplift, or relieve suffering and it brings respite i don't see how you could call that pointless or without merit." I would just like to bring your attention to the Placebo effect. If chocolate beans disguised as medicine can "comfort, uplift, or relieve suffering and it brings respite", why shouldn't we use more of them?In response to:"I don't think you can apply logic to God not conventioinal human logic because God isn't human".You are very welcome to your opinion. But that issue (whether human logic is similar enough to God logic to allow for worthwhile discussion) has been discussed on other threads so I will leave that assertion well alone.The rest of your post are assertions and opinions irrelevant to the topic as well so I will stop here. Thank you for your input.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

I've wanted to sell something like that for the longest time..."Placebo! It's good for what ails you. That's right, folks, Placebo has been tested against 100% of modern medicines, and each time achieved results. Get into the Placebo Effect. Buy Placebo today!"

To Spiritman:1)
"Allow me this simple analogy:
If I knew with perfect certainty that at this instant:
1) My dog will bark if I shout.
2) The cat next door will run if my dog barks.
3) My neighbour will trip over and drop fifteen electric toasters into the fish tank if the cat runs.
4) My neighbour's goldfish will be fried to the point of delicious death if he/she drops the afore mentioned items into the tank."However, that puts the freewill out of existence = flawed analogy.Please explain, with special emphasis on WHY the parts you have quoted above has led to your conclusion. I was surprised with your comment because the assumptions I made: "If I knew with perfect certainty..." is pretty much in tune with foreknowledge, and ultimately omniscience. So if you concluded from my assumptions alone that I will eliminate freewill, then what are we arguing about?2)
"You missed a point earlier on, God created man innocent, man then (with freewill) made choices against a Godly existence, and in doing so gave HIMSELF a hard time."I think those were assumptions you've made, yes? However, they are very much contestable (and as a matter of fact, ARE being contested as we speak).a) If God created man and God created Lucifer, and God knew that Lucifer will turn bad and screw around with man, then your assertion that "God created man innocent" would be pointless. I know you will have a hard time understanding why this is, but it will take me many many posts to make this clear to you.b) If God gave man free will, knowing that man will, with free will, turn against God, then man didn't really make choices. (This was the point I made, and still is the topic being discussed on this thread)3) Going back to my analogy. I agree totally that my analogy is flawed, though probably not the same way as you say it is. I besiege you to look things from the perspective of each individual part of my analogy:In the analogy -Me = God. I know everything (the chain of events) and can do anything (in this case, I can shout). Of course, in reality, God can do anything, but I am trying to restrict the scenario to only account for a part of the world.My dog, the cat, my neighbour = the free-will beings around us. They were subjected to the ripple effects of creation (that is, me shouting). Technically speaking, they have free will. But because I have omniscience (that is, I know what they will do before they do it), they REALLY only have the APPEARANCE of free will (this was my point, and was worded better by Crashfrog, and somehow later confirmed by you in post 69 which made me all dizzy and confused)The death of the goldfish = all events that happened in the world around us. Technically speaking, my neighbour killed the goldfish. But when you see it from God's perspective (that is, my perspective), God is ultimately responsible through creation (i.e. shouting).Note that you will have problems grasping this analogy because you seem to have a prejudice against God taking the blame for anything. But when you look into it, is God responsible for the sky being blue and the rainbow after the rain? What I have tried to show is, the fact that creation sets into motion a domino that led to everything that happened, is happening and will be happening, God is responsible for EVERYTHING (both good and bad, to reduce the negative connotations) whereas you WANT (note the subjective overtone) God to be only responsible for the good.Before you go on, please try to understand the concept of the appearance of free will (or if you cannot, at least see how omniscience would create a psedo-free will condition (as outlined by my analogy).Thank you for your input.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

I've had discussion with my MD brother about just that issue. He feels that a placebo can be used but only under specific conditions:1) He must do a complete workup to be sure that there isn't a condition that is very serious or has a good treatment.
2) He can't lie. That is, he can't say "This works." He might say "Some people have been helped with this" or "You could try these."
3)He can't charge for the "sugar pills".Since having a high price makes some people think a "cure" must be good the third one is a problem. Since he expects his patients to take his advice he can't lie at any time which makes convincing someone it is a good treatment a problem.He was able to (he's not a GP anymore but in emerg) use placebo's a few times but not many.I've had my GP use placebo's with the kids a couple of times ("magic wart tape" for example).On another note I'm not sure how good the evidence for placebo's is either. LOL, that is I'm not sure how good the prayer evidence is. Someone once said that the experiment has been done. What is the controlled match(age, family history etc) results of comparing the life expectancy of the college of cardinals and the members of the AAAS?

thanks for the welcome and the reply Sleeping Dragon......I take everything I read with a grain of salt so if you have any questions or problems with the data I suggest taking it up with the author and could you possibly post up your results...thanksthere's another article on evolution on there that i found thought provoking as well.In the context of predetermination my assertions and opinions seemed quite relevent as they were in response to your assumptions and deductionsin regard to placebo's, if it works use it......and thanks for starting this thread for me to have some input into

Either your kids aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, or your GP isn't. That wouldn't have fooled me when I was 3. If you wanted to fool me, you would have called it "dermal protuberance remission tape no.4" or something.The idea that confidence in the outcome can actually actualize the outcome was something I understood well as a child, and I don't think I was unique. It would have taken a little more than the word "magic" to really convince me.

To Ringokid:I have taken your advice and have followed up on the trail of the mysterious website by sending the author the following email:"Dear Elizabeth Hensley:An acqaintance of my has recently directed my attention to your site:http://www.proofgodexists.org/...c_study_of_prayer_under.htmI was fascinated with the results recorded and was wonderinf if you could be so kind as to forward me any information on the studies you have discussed. It would be extremely helpful if you could provide me with a list of references for the studies, including authors and dates of publication so that I may be able to partake my own research into this interesting topic. Thank you very much for your time, hoping to hear from you soon.Yours sincerely,(my name edited out)"I think that the main point is as you have stated: "if it works use it". I don't think anyone will have any problems with this opinion. But the process used to decide whether it actually DOES work should be an objective one, do you agree?For the following quote:"and while the earth and the universe may be heading towards a predetermined end I don't think we as a species are as we have the power to change it. I do believe we can extrapolate current trends and prognosticate on our future as a species but ultimately it is our choice what happens to us individually and collectively."The reason why I decided that it is irrelevant to the topic was because you are agreeing with the view that our outcome is not predetermined and hence we have free will, which, coincidentally is my view. Perhaps irrelevant is the wrong word to use, unproductive would be a better description.My ARGUMENT is that Omniscience + omnipotence = predetermined outcome =/= free will. Your opinion that the lack of predetermined outcome = free will fits into that perfectly.Your opinions and assertions seem to be in agreement with my assumptions. Hence I ignored them.If it is a misunderstanding on my part, I am wholeheartedly sorry. Thank you for your reply.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

quote:

---

Ever thought that some prayers might go unaswered intentionally because there will be a better outcome in the longrun because of it?

---

My own personal feeling is that this is poor theology. First of all, we don't know what the future holds, therefore unanswered or answered can not be separated as to which one is "better". Secondly, this type of argument covers all possible outcomes, and therefore doesn't explain anything. Is it better to have a friend die at the age of 18 from brain cancer. My answer at the time was NO. I still think the answer is no. My opinion is that (if there is a God) that He doesn't answer all prayer, even from his most faithful followers. Not only does He not answer prayer, but He often leads us down the path that is more painful and not "better". I find it a weak argument that answered prayers are proof of the existence of God, since on the other hand unanswered prayer seems to be proof for some as well. However, unaswered or answered, no one should quit their faith because of the outcome of prayer, which is what I tell people struggling with their faith. In the long run, I think that people hanging their faith on fulfilled prayer are going to find their spiritual life lacking. But again, just my opinion.

Wow, what a refutation of sorts, add sarcasm. My whole point in being here is to show you that we can both make assumptions.Your analogy paints God as the bad guy, my analogy has God painting a painting. My point is that God intended good - and has only ever done good.Now let's pretend that the fish would live forever if God was fried..... So then - like RingoKid pointed out, God's logic may well be more logical, I noticed you sweeped his relevant posts under the carpet of irrelevancy.If God can do anything - then obviously, God liking his fish fried may well be because of a "bigger" outcome, hence my bafflement postage above. My whole point is that it is a concept - not a reality. You did make a choice of yellow, and your mind had complete access to yellow OR red. No, the dog has a choice to bark or not bark. But how about my revised edition of your analogy? Also, the burnage of the fish was accidental, this is not relevant to the truth of planet earth. Man has a choice, in your analogy, the fish has no substitution for logic. Including the fish that live forever, and the fish that don't get burned?You are correct about one thing though; your analogy has many flaws. Some goldfish survive. You infact gave the goldfish as a gift, you intended that they should live, you knew that if you shouted your dog would cause the events to unfold, and if you didn't shout the goldfish wouldn't exist.You see? In a way the above is not really logically relevant, as you would say "why if I don't shout, would they not exist". IOW, we can manipulate the analogy to suit anything we want, yet it has no relevance to the reality of any situation - we take it for granted that my analogy above is not plausible to reality. In the same way, your "goldfish" are also unrealistic to reality, though not in such an obvious way. How can all the events in this reality - be compared with the death of goldfish?I now substitute reality for an icecream evolving chimney sweeper.This message has been edited by spirit man, 05-17-2004 03:12 PM

To Spiritman:Note:
1) I think you have missed part (1) in post 93.Reply to post 99:
2) I am fully aware that we are both allowed to make assumptions. However, as you can see, I had the common courtesy of outlining the assumption I've made (post 1) before diving head first into my argument.My assumptions so far are: a) omnipotence, and b) omniscience, and from Asgara's perspective, I should probably add c) God is the sole creator of life (even though I classed it as part of (a)). If you are going to argue against the use of these assumptions, then you are more than welcome to do so. As a matter of fact, Crashfrog and assorted others have already stated that there is actually a fourth assumption that needs to be stated: d) that there is only one future.This is my position at present: that omnipotence (including sole creation of human life) and omniscience dictates predetermined outcome (in a universe with only one possible future)and hence in such a scenario, there is no free will.This is a wee bit different to the position stated in post 1, but for the sake of my arguments, the gist is identical (since you have never put forward a multi-future argument, nor have you given another deity the honour of creating life).Special note: Please do NOT say that I have changed my position midway in the discussion to avoid your arguments. Using your current line of argument, the changes (actually, additions to) to my position has never, and if the trend continues, will never affect the validty of your arguments.3) In this quote:"You missed a point earlier on, God created man innocent, man then (with freewill) made choices against a Godly existence, and in doing so gave HIMSELF a hard time."What you have done is you have taken the plot of the bible, and "unassumed" my assumptions. I will proceeed to show you how that is the case:You stated that God created man innocent, and then man with free will "made choices against Godly existence" (I think that's a textbook definition of sinning?) and so man is responsible for their own outcomes.This interpretation is contestable (as I have said earlier) because I have shown (post 1) that to an omnipotent, omniscient God (my assumptions, which you have not challenged) His creations will have no free will. Hence Your first statement (God created man innocent) and second (man with free will) CANNOT, by my assumptions, co-exist!
Hence in putting forward your argument (above quote), you have assumed away my assumptions.This practice is ok if my assumptions are some made up crap, but if they are as fundamental (pardon the pun) to the Christian faith as omnipotence and omniscience (I am taking the view of the majority of Fundamentalists Christians), then you would run into trouble.Question: will you argue against the Christian God possessing omnipotenece and omniscience?Special note: by the way Spiritman, next time you make assumptions, please do so explicitly. I have difficulties isolating your assumptions from your arguments.4) My analogy paints God as a muppet-master. A muppet-master is responsible for any and all actions made by his/her muppets. A muppet-master need not be a "bad-guy". Please re-read my earlier post(s) and try to work away the victim-mentality you are currently displaying.5) I have explained why I have "sweeped his relevant posts under the carpet of irrelevancy" in post 97. As for "God's logic may well be more logical", if we cannot determine and agree on the attributes of God, how can we discuss anything about Him/Her?Now this is a gem:"If God can do anything - then obviously, God liking his fish fried may well be because of a "bigger" outcome"I have never contested this at all. By your argument, if God, from the point of creation, wanted me to be an Atheist and fry in hell, then it "may well be because of a "bigger" outcome", and I have no free will. That conclusion goes hand in hand with my position (what God likes = predetermined outcome = no free will for me or fish).See, this is what makes discussing with you such a pain. Sometimes, you actually DO see the points, but the fact that you agree with them at one time, and disagrees at another baffles me.6) "My whole point is that it is a concept - not a reality"A concept CAN be a reality. I am saying my concept is, you're saying my concept is not. It is our collective efforts here is to show why the concept I have described (predetermined = no free will) is or is not the reality.7) "the dog has a choice to bark or not"It did, but the fact that God (me) has omnisciences means that there is no such thing as choices, but only the appearance of choice. Read my analogy again.8) "how about my revised edition of your analogy"Please state your revised version in your next post.9) "burnage of the fish was accidental"The point with predetermined outcome is that NOTHING is "accidental". God doesn't make accidents.10) "not relevant to the truth of planet earth"This is so vague it is not funny.11) "Man has a choice, in your analogy, the fish has no substitution for logic."You're stating that as though it is obvious (or as though it is your assumption, I can't tell which). It is not. With predetermined outcome, there IS NO CHOICE. You're looking at my analogy without seeing the Gestalt of it all.12) "Including the fish that live forever, and the fish that don't get burned?"YES. The outcome could be ANYTHING! If it makes you feel better, then substitute the fried fish with a fish that suffers from extraordinary longevity, but that would have no effect on the validty of my arguments. And from that, I can still conclude that burnt fish, crippled fish, crazy fish, etc. are all attributable to God's hand. See: "muppet-master".13) "Some goldfish survive. You infact gave the goldfish as a gift, you intended that they should live, you knew that if you shouted your dog would cause the events to unfold, and if you didn't shout the goldfish wouldn't exist.You see? In a way the above is not really logically relevant, as you would say "why if I don't shout, would they not exist".IOW, we can manipulate the analogy to suit anything we want, yet it has no relevance to the reality of any situation - we take it for granted that my analogy above is not plausible to reality. In the same way, your "goldfish" are also unrealistic to reality, though not in such an obvious way. How can all the events in this reality - be compared with the death of goldfish?"Look, if it makes you feel better, substitute the death of goldfish with any outcome. I am not trying to argue outcome with you, only the process. You understand that if God intended Christians to live happily ever after, then HE must also intend for Atheists (and Buddhists, and Muslims, and...) to fry in sunny hell.What I am trying to convey with my analogy is not the outcome, but the PREDETERMINED-ness of it all. If something good happens, you say that God did it (specifically that God has the explicit intention of it occuring) while if anything bad happens, you say that man (or satan did it). I am trying to show the flaw in that. You can't have it both ways: either God is responsible for both the Good and Bad, or He is responsible for nothing at all.My argument has shown that because omnipotence and omniscience (God) cannot lead to free will, therefore everything (both Good and Bad) must be attributable to God. Period.Please outline your assumptions, arguments, and the "revised version of my analogy" in your next post. Moreover, please answer this post in the order given. Thank you.Thank you for your input.

---

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

Loudmouth -I agree with you, and because so many selfless prayers go unanswered, it almost makes god seem arbitrary. I believe in god, but not as a christian; so I do not know why god would answer my prayer regarding my lost dog, and not answer my prayer for my mother to 'get better'.
I don't have an answer for that, but even if I did, I doubt that it would make any sense. Shouldn't prayers be answered on the basis of importance? I would think so.I like what you said regarding unanswered prayers and faith. I, too, have spoken with people of various faiths (usually christian) that seem to hinge their belief during a moment of crisis, on a specific prayer. When it doesn't happen, I have watched people lose it.
Makes you wonder that they were basing their faith on in the first place.

Forgive my immediate selfishness in not giving you a deserved effort. I will try and take my time a bit more. There is another assumption made though,(not necessarily voiced by you) which is namely this; That freewill must not be in effect if God is omnimax. Essentially - this logically means that no freewill = God, yet, that doesn't mean freewill = no God, that is indeed a faulty conclusion, and is the inverse of the statement.No freewill = God is the same as the illusion of freewill! God = no freewill, the positive is then; freewill = No God. However, I can also make a statement of my own in which has no sufficient explanation or relevance. You see, all I have done is say that God doesn't = no freewill. And I have shown many examples of how my assumption can also be correct.You are avoiding the realities of logic. I can halp you deduce if you ask nicely. You see, you have to explain WHY God MUST = no freewill. You have somewhat explained but you yourself are biased in thinking that there is no possibility of both God and freewill. You yourself stated that God is all powerful, omnipotent. So is this thing beyond him?If freewill and God can't exist together, then he wouldn't be able to do the thing, making him not omnipotent. Correct, an assumption is not necessarily a reality. I can assume that "the rainbow is colourful, therefore fruit is from the rainbow because fruit is colourful". I will now un-assume it. I will assume there is no connection, like with omnimax God and freewill, and also - the painting analogy. You are ignoring my points. Why should I - I don't fear your argument or take it as truth. I do apreciate your efforts though. What I mean by the quote, is that, if we suffer in this present time - the glory that shall be revealed in us makes the suffering unworthy. However, I admitt the mistake of the statement - as God didn't fry the fish. I have added in blue the statement I would have made. You are assuming his intentions match up to your assumptions. Your assumption is not written in stone - we can both play the game. The fact is that your analogy DOES paint the picture as God being the bad guy. You see, if you had said some fish in the tank died, some fish lived, and the ones that died, lived forever, then I would consider you as more unbiased. But if God is omnipotent and has the power to do anything, then surely freewill is not beyond him.

It is merely a progression of logic. It has been said that god and freewill can exist in a multi universe scenario.However if everything about your future is known, down to the very last detail, do you have any choice in the matter. I mean when ur sat in that situation you may believe you are choosing, but if it is already known what you choose, you arent choosing so much as following a pre set path.This is the logical progression. Please put forward your logical progression in basic terms. I think the general progression being used here is the one i placed above.To really attempt to stick a spanner in the works here is the actual theory that i work to in life.I have no belief in there being a god/creator etc. I believe we are merely the complex formation of many atoms, and that decisions are made on chemical balances in the brain. This means if my brain was to go through exactly the same progression of experiences, when placed in a situation it would always make the same choice. I am making a choice here (i am my brain, my brain is who i am), however if every atom could be followed then in theory my life could also be determined as such (i would always follow the same route no matter how many times you reran my life).However i would argue here that this still gives me free will as such, just that i would always make the same decisions, because i consider them to be the best. This gives you something of a more predicted rather than determined life. However life isnt even that simple, because of the occurence of truly random events (radioactive decay etc) this means that any random event that has any small effect on my life in any way means that my life will be different from original predictions.I could be tempted to see your arguement being able to base it on similar things as mine, predicted not determined. But using the final (although i havent used it previously) assumption from Asgara that god is the only one who creates life, then he would be able to see the future life of anything he creates, and so would know if he is creating someone who will end up being an athiest. This final assumption takes us once more from a predicted world into a determined. However if this assumption is not used then i would be willing to accept a compromise that our lives are merely perfectly predicted rather than determined (though definitions could rage here).Unseuledit just to make one sentence read more clearlyThis message has been edited by Unseul, 05-18-2004 12:17 PM

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

A compromise heh? Lol. Well, I think it is wize that you might see holes in this.You see, to me, you are doing something wrong, yet it is perfectly innocent and understandable. I will try to show you how your argument looks from my point of view. You see, you really are not believing anything. There really is no connection between red yellow and blue.Yellow = God, God is independent from blue because the fact is the question itself is directed at you. You see, from my perspective, I am asking you to pick "heads or tails". The only thing stopping you from going against the true and final outcome, is that you yourself are not omniscient.Think hard now . If you went against the very final outcome, what would you be doing?You would be trying to outdo YOURSELF!To God, it might be like this: "If I tell him the outcome - he might go against it, yet he will only be going against his own choices, or rather - He will be trying to out-think me".Once you dis-associate these things as the same color then I hope you might see my perspective.I apreciate your thoughts and beliefs. I personally think we are not just the sum of our parts. I have only shown the above to show you my own mindset/view of this, not to prove anything. I really do believe that God's omniscience has no relevance to our freewill. It's like watching a football game you have video taped. Because God is independant from time, it might aswell be history to God, hence prophecy. So, if I watch the game and say, "the bull-heads won", does that mean I am responsible for them winning? Believe it or not - that is exactly the same thing we are discussing.

As i said, i could see why our lives could merely be prefectly predicted rather than actually determined (assuming god doesnt have anything to do with each of our own actual creations).Now i've come to accept that god and free will could exist (with certain parameters, but not outside the usual omniscient and omnipotent) all i have to do is start believing in both these things Personally i think that your last paragraph has explained more about your opinion of how it all works infinitly better than the rest of your arguements Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....