Atheists Only: Would this be proof? (agnostic, pray, Abraham, God)

[lilithu]

Yes, yes, I'm not an atheist. But let me just say that I agree with what eudaimonia, Mystic and others said. All it proves is that prayer works, but it doesn't show why. For all we know there could exist as yet undetected "mentons" that when directed at other people can improve their health.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by charles brough

Strange question? If the half that was prayed for healed and those who were not prayed for died, of course it would be necessary to dig deep to find out why! It could be that those who died had a worse health condition.

Obviously my intent was to start out with the assumption that they were all equally ill.

But, medical experiments have been conducted of this type and those who were prayed for did NOT do any better than the rest.

Actually, I've heard conflicting reports, but that is neither here nor there.

I assume you have some point to make over what seems simple to me. Why not tell us what your point is?

I really don't have a point to make. I can assure you -- as can most every long-time RFer reading this -- that if I have a point to make, I am generally pretty upfront about stating it. I was really just curious more than anything else, as to what kind of "overwhelming evidence" would be required for the atheists here on RF to acknowledge the possibility of a Higher Power. I wasn't trying to do anything more than that.

I will say one thing, though, that I have noticed in the majority of the posts I've seen so far. I find it really interesting that almost all of you have immediately jumped to a conclusion that the results of the experiment were not accurate or that the control data was bad or something of that nature. That strikes me as kind of funny, since it's the first time I've seen the tables turned that way. So often, when atheists attempt to disprove the existence of God and offer up "proof" for their position, the theists responses are all, "Well, that doesn't prove anything! Maybe God intervened and that's why we got the results we did!" To me, all that anyone (theist or atheist) has managed to prove so far is that our belief or disbelief is something that is so internalized that "proof" or even "compelling evidence" is dismissed if it contradicts what we already think we know.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by lilithu

All it proves is that prayer works, but it doesn't show why.

If the individuals being prayed for neither believed in God nor knew that they were being prayed for, can you suggest a reason behind your conclusion that "prayer works"?

The results are that prayer heals people with cancer. But it's an interpretation to say that God is responsible for that healing. A scientist would look for a physical explanation for the results.

I see what you're getting at, and I guess I didn't adequately explain the controls that would have to be in place. It goes without saying that in my hypothetical, impossible-to-create example, everyone would be equally ill, the doctors in each case would be equally qualified, etc. Since we're just pretending anyway, we could say that they all had exactly the same kind of cancer, were all treated by the same very busy team of doctors and had the exact same prognosis. The only real differences would be that (1) prayers were offered on behalf of half of the individuals and (2) the group being prayed for recovered and the others died. There were no exceptions. Maybe 500,000 people isn't a big enough number, I don't know. I'm just saying that even if I did not believe in God, with results like that, I'd have to stop and reconsider. If, as a doctor and a scientist, I could find no evidence that I'd overlooked some other factors, I'd probably become a believer. Again, if somebody else would just brush the whole thing off as a huge coincidence, that's fine too. I guess it's just something I'm not able to understand.

[gnomon]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Calling all atheists! Okay, first off, I am not proselytizing, so don't bother getting out the boxing gloves. I couldn't care less that you don't believe in God (for the sake of argument, let's say the Abrahamic God). So, let's get that straight for starters. It's just that I've heard so many atheists say, "Give me proof and I'll believe in God." I don't even bother trying, because I know I can't prove that God exists. Whenever a theist does attempt to come up with proof, you guys refuse to accept it. I can't say that I blame you since I don't find their proof particularly compelling myself. Today, my husband and I were having a conversation that made me think about starting this thread. Basically, it had to do with prayer and with God's will.

I started wondering about a hypothetical, although impossible, situation that, in my opinion, could -- if it were feasible -- be considered proof of God's existence. Let's say we had a group of 500,000 people, all of whom were terminally ill and none of whom were in any way religious. They could be either agnostic or atheist, I suppose, but they definitely would not be the kind of people who would ever pray, asking that God heal them, nor would they solicit the prayers of others on their behalf. Let's assume that they were all close to death and resigned to the fact that the end was near. Now, let's say that these people were split into two groups of 250,000 each. The prayers of all Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world were offered up to God, pleading with Him to heal the dying individuals within the first of these two groups. No one, however would pray for anyone in the second group. Within a relatively short period of time (let's say two weeks), every single one of the 250,000 individuals for whom prayers were offered were "miraculously" healed. Without a single exception, all of them were as healthy as they'd been at any time in their lives. On the other hand, during this same period of time, every last one of the 250,000 who had not had anyone pray for them (and had not prayed for themselves) died, as had been expected.

Would these results, if they were exactly as I described them, possibly cause you to re-think you lack of belief in God? Would they, in other words, be sufficient to make you to believe in God? If not, to what would you attribute the results of the experiment? (Please don't start by telling me that such an experiment would be impossible to perform. I may be a theist, but I'm honestly not quite that stupid! Just pretend that we actually could do this experiment and come up with the results I stated and take it from there.)

Since this is not a debate forum, I'm just looking for answers. I may or may not come back with further thoughts of my own.

No. It would not change the fact that I hold God to be irrelevant. Instead, I would kick myself for not playing a lottery number.

[lilithu]

Man... I thought I deleted that post in time. After posting it, it was no longer clear to me whether you were talking about eudaomonia's and Mystic's responses or whether you were talking about some earlier responses which did seem to question the validity of the experiments.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

If the individuals being prayed for neither believed in God nor knew that they were being prayed for, can you suggest a reason behind your conclusion that "prayer works"?

As I suggested in my first post, maybe there's an as yet undetected thing that we'll call a "menton." Our brains generate mentons when we pray for the well being of others, and these mentons are directed at them. And they have healing properties. Yes, it's a lot of scifi speculation, but as I said, provided that the results of the experiment clearly show that prayer works, a scientist will go looking for a physical explanation as to why it works. Science will never postulate God as being the cause. It can't because that's not how science works. Every explanation has to have a physical basis. And it has to be simpler than the thing it's explaining.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I see what you're getting at, and I guess I didn't adequately explain the controls that would have to be in place. It goes without saying that in my hypothetical, impossible-to-create example, everyone would be equally ill, the doctors in each case would be equally qualified, etc. Since we're just pretending anyway, we could say that they all had exactly the same kind of cancer, were all treated by the same very busy team of doctors and had the exact same prognosis. The only real differences would be that (1) prayers were offered on behalf of half of the individuals and (2) the group being prayed for recovered and the others died. There were no exceptions. Maybe 500,000 people isn't a big enough number, I don't know. I'm just saying that even if I did not believe in God, with results like that, I'd have to stop and reconsider. If, as a doctor and a scientist, I could find no evidence that I'd overlooked some other factors, I'd probably become a believer. Again, if somebody else would just brush the whole thing off as a huge coincidence, that's fine too. I guess it's just something I'm not able to understand.

I understood all of that in your first post. I'm assuming that the experiment was done absolutely flawlessly, and that the experiment conclusively shows that prayer heals people with cancer. It still wouldn't prove the existence of God for the reason I gave above. All it proves is that there's something that we don't as yet understand that has healing properties. But a scientist, and I assume most atheists, would assume that whatever the explanation is, it will be a material/physical cause.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by des

Ok, of course this is a hypotheical experiment, so how do you make sure it is really double blind?

DO you have one group issue phony prayers? Or do you just pray anonymously over one group (say out of contact with them)? Do you rotate the beds around so one group doesn't think anything is different? I'm just not sure how you would get this true double blind structure.

Even if you could, I don't think this would prove the existence of god(s), but perhaps the power of some type of positive thought or powers of someone

--des

First of all - the sick people aren't the ones doing the praying. All of the Religious people of the world are doing it - and they are simply praying that God will heal those in group #1. The only people who know which patients are in group #1 are those who designed the experiment, and God of course The patients don't know, the doctors don't know, those praying don't know.

[lilithu]

Hi soymilk.

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

First of all - the sick people aren't the ones doing the praying. All of the Religious people of the world are doing it - and they are simply praying that God will heal those in group #1. The only people who know which patients are in group #1 are those who designed the experiment, and God of course The patients don't know, the doctors don't know, those praying don't know.

I didn't get this from Katz's original description. If this is the case - that the people praying do not know who they're praying for - my hypothetical explanation would not work. And I can't think of an explanation that would.

So... just speaking for myself personally, I would have to consider that God was behind it. Granted that I'm not an atheist so it may be easier for me to consider that possibility, but I also do not have a conception of God where God intervenes in such a partisan way. I would have to reconsider. (Can't speak for others and will be interested to hear what they say.)

Thanks for the clarification soy, and sorry Katz, if this is what you indeed meant, for my causing you any frustration.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Hi soymilk.

I didn't get this from Katz's original description. If this is the case - that the people praying do not know who they're praying for - my hypothetical explanation would not work. And I can't think of an explanation that would.

So... just speaking for myself personally, I would have to consider that God was behind it. Granted that I'm not an atheist so it may be easier for me to consider that possibility, but I also do not have a conception of God where God intervenes in such a partisan way. I would have to reconsider. (Can't speak for others and will be interested to hear what they say.)

Thanks for the clarification soy, and sorry Katz, if this is what you indeed meant, for my causing you any frustration.

It wasn't in Katz's description. I added the improvements on my own. Katz can take them or leave them