Empirical Evidence and Arguments for God(s)

PureX said:

You're avoiding the point. Which is that the autonomy you are demanding does not exist. EVERYTHING is an "emergent property". And EVERYTHING is dependent upon the mystery from which it has emerged. The key to it's differentiation is not it's autonomy, but the unique possibilities that result. Possibilities that did not exist within the source from which it emerged.

Matter emerges from energy, creating a whole realm of possibilities that energy, by itself, could not produce. Life emerges from matter and energy, embodying possibilities that did not exist within the matter and energy, alone. Consciousness emerges from life, manifesting possibilities that do not exist as mere 'life'. Each emergence transcends the realm of possibilities that existed within the source from which it emerged. And yet in no instance do these examples of transcendent emergence become "totally autonomous" from their source.They are in fact new realms of possibility, not new (independent) realms of existence.

We do not know the ultimate source from which existence has emerged. We do not know the limits of the possibilities that have emerged from it.

In many ways, and in most cultures, the term "God" refers to this conjoined mystery.

Click to expand...

1137 said:

**DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE:** the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

**DEFINITION OF VALID ARGUMENT:** validity is the principle that if all the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Also known as formal validity and valid argument

CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ONTOLOGICAL PRIMITIVE: THE EXISTENCE OF GOD(S)

- Consciousness is empirically proven to be ontologically distinct from matter. This can be shown by comparing the properties of both, such as minds being nonspacial and matter taking up space, the contents of mind being subjective and those of matter objective, the contents of mind private to the individual and those of matter accessible to anyone, the contents of mind being about things and the contents of matter lacking aboutness, and these are only a few examples. Anyone can test this at any time. For instance, the volume in a room your body takes up will be the same if you're actively consciously thinking or dead, there's no difference. Or that no matter who you love the most, they cannot actually access those feelings. [1]

- Consciousness is an absolute certainty, it is the one thing we know directly and can be sure exists. The existence of the Self and Consciousness is an axiomatic fact, it must be true and cannot even be logically argued against without violating that same logic. Anything that is Not-Consciousness in known through Consciousness, including the material world, body, and brain. Anything you ever have or will know about matter relies on consciousness, and while consciousness cannot have its existence doubted [2-3], we can EASILY doubt matter (such as brain in a vat, solipsism, idealism, philosophical skepticism, etc.) [4-7]. To reduce what we know is axiomatically true and we know with direct certainty, into something we can doubt and never directly or certainly know, is height of unreasonable.

- Consciousness, even in less advanced beings like animals, comes with very specific traits. This includes being aware of the self and others to some extent, having needs and desires, seeking either social situations or isolation actively, emotions, and so forth.

- CONCLUSION: since consciousness axiomatically exists, cannot be doubted, and is proven ontologically distinct from matter, consciousness must be a separate “substance” or “thing”, an ontological primitive. We know this primitive because we have direct access to it, so we can know about the nature of consciousness. An ontological primitive – something immaterial and eternal – which desires, has emotions, experiences, is self-aware, etc. is the best possible definition for a God. Therefore at least one God exists.

THE NATURE/RISE OF CONSCIOUSNESS: THE INTERFERENCE FROM GOD(S)

- Not only are the properties of consciousness mutually exclusive from those of matter, but what we see consciousness is capable of, at least in humans, does not line up with the deterministic, linearly moving, material universe. For instance the mind of humans can question, manipulate, and even go against this linear, deterministic matter. Questioning is proven in this very writing, we are stepping outside of the system and looking in to figure out how it works, something which, to our knowledge, no other life does. If it does they certainly and evidently don’t to the same extent. We can manipulate nature such as the creation of complex chemical medications, the harnessing of electricity itself, the building of mega-structures that stand the tests of time [8-9], not to mention devices such as what you’re reading this on which would never have grown in a consciousness-less nature. Contradiction of this material nature is scientifically proven in things such as Self-Regulation, Cognitive Therapy, and Placebos without Deception [10-12]. All of these prove that we can willfully recognize our deterministic patterns and freely choose to act differently.

- The rise of the higher consciousness possessed by humans is suspicious even if we ignore that this consciousness came to be able to contradict nature, and doesn’t fit with what we know about biological evolution. This is specifically in the Great Leap Forward of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, a scientifically proven event well known in anthropology. Mankind went from “just another animal” to an abstractly questioning and thinking being. Art arose, religion, language, math, cultures, agriculture, and society and civilization themselves. This has never occurred to the same extent in another species, not even close. Further, there was no genetic change that occurred at this time, and biologically modern humans had already existed for over 100,000 years when the UPR happened![13-15]

- CONCLUSION: The nature of consciousness the UPR birthed, along with the scientifically evidenced fact that it occurred abruptly and without biological evolution, suggest the interference of something outside of nature, i.e. a God.

TELEOLOGY OF MIND AND BODY: THE PLAN OF GOD(S)

- There is a Telos to the mind which was proven by psychological scientist Abraham Maslow in his Hierarchy of Needs. This shows the best path for human beings to follow in order to reach their ideal life, something that applies across times in cultures. Maslow showed that there is a “proper” hierarchy to human priorities, and a “proper” end-goal of Self-Actualization whatever that may before you. [16]

- There is a Telos to the body which was proven by the Yale School of Medicine, especially through the works of Dr. Harold Burr. It shows that there are external fields creating and controlling, not simply produced by, the physical forms of all life. Anything from trees to amphibians to human beings. Readings of these “Life Fields” can predict cancer, ovulation, birth defects, and much more. Unfortunately Dr. Burr believed this to be evidence of an intelligent plan (it is…), so it has been largely swept under the rug in favor of (much more profitable!) materialism. [17-19]

- CONCLUSION: There being a clear proper path for both all matter and consciousness shows that there is a Telos, or purpose, to human life and that we do not exist or evolve randomly.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: DIRECT EXPERIENCES OF GOD(S)

- Every single culture has experienced Gods. Hundreds of millions of people throughout human history and across cultures have experienced Gods, and these experiences have extremely similar characteristics. In fact these are so clear the can be categorized into 3 specific types of experiences (see Philosophy of Religion, and Introduction, by atheism William Rowe for example) [20]. Yes, the pantheons experienced seem to differ, but this is exactly what we would expect from cultures dependent on different geography, weather, economy, class system, and so forth. To say this shows the experiences are invalid would be like saying the stars don’t exist because cultures came up with different constellations.

- We also don’t inherently reject any human experience as delusion off the bat. We accept people experience pain, love, fear, happiness, depression, etc., despite never having actual access to their experiences. Yet when it comes to religious experiences many non-believers fall back on SPECIAL PLEADING, which is to judge this one type of experience differently from the rest. [21]

- CONCLUSION: since we would expect gods to be interpreted differently by cultures, and without reasons to reject religious experiences (which would have to be on an individual basis, such as pain), all we have is something all cultures have consistent experienced across time, which parsimony would suggest means they actually experienced them.

POLYTHEISM: MORE THAN ONE GOD

- There are experiences of all different gods throughout time, and so if one accepts experience (you have to without reasons specific to that individual case, such as intoxication or mental illness) they cannot say THEIR god is valid while others are not without SPECIAL PLEADING.

- Monotheistic gods have been logically defeated, such as by the problem of evil, lack of miracles, lack of answered prayers, etc.

- CONCLUSION: If you believe ANY gods exist, it is more reasonable to believe MANY do.

SOME References

1- Mind/Body Dualism, SEP
Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

2- About of Consciousness Axiom of Consciousness - Objectivism Wiki

3- Ontological Argument for Idealism by Bernardo Kastrup

4 to 7- Skepticism and Content Externalism Skepticism and Content Externalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

8- Making Medicines
Making medicines

9- Powering a Generation
Powering A Generation: Generating Electricity

10- How to Practice Self Regulation
How to Develop and Use Self-Regulation in Your Life

11- Cognitive Appraisal
Cognitive Appraisal

12- Placebos Without Deception
Placebos without Deception: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome

13- Framework of the UPR
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

14- Modern Humans Take the World
Was the Upper Paleolithic the Height of Artistic Brilliance?

15- UP Technology, Art, Culture
Paleolithic technology, culture, and art

16- Hierarchy of Needs
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

17- The Electrical Patterns of Life
The Electrical Patterns of Life; The Work of Dr. Harold S. Burr | Men & Women of Medicine | World Research Foundation

18- Harold Burr's Biofields
http://www.energymed.org/hbank/handouts/harold_burr_biofields.htm

19- Electromagnetics of Life (PDF)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0xWf76krbzIG2DWHWuOP4q&cshid=1569537305106

20- Phi of Religion https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Religion-Introduction-William-Rowe/dp/0495007250

21- Special Pleading
Special Pleading

Click to expand...

1137 said:

**DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE:** the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

**DEFINITION OF VALID ARGUMENT:** validity is the principle that if all the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Also known as formal validity and valid argument

CONSCIOUSNESS AS AN ONTOLOGICAL PRIMITIVE: THE EXISTENCE OF GOD(S)

- Consciousness is empirically proven to be ontologically distinct from matter. This can be shown by comparing the properties of both, such as minds being nonspacial and matter taking up space, the contents of mind being subjective and those of matter objective, the contents of mind private to the individual and those of matter accessible to anyone, the contents of mind being about things and the contents of matter lacking aboutness, and these are only a few examples. Anyone can test this at any time. For instance, the volume in a room your body takes up will be the same if you're actively consciously thinking or dead, there's no difference. Or that no matter who you love the most, they cannot actually access those feelings. [1]

- Consciousness is an absolute certainty, it is the one thing we know directly and can be sure exists. The existence of the Self and Consciousness is an axiomatic fact, it must be true and cannot even be logically argued against without violating that same logic. Anything that is Not-Consciousness in known through Consciousness, including the material world, body, and brain. Anything you ever have or will know about matter relies on consciousness, and while consciousness cannot have its existence doubted [2-3], we can EASILY doubt matter (such as brain in a vat, solipsism, idealism, philosophical skepticism, etc.) [4-7]. To reduce what we know is axiomatically true and we know with direct certainty, into something we can doubt and never directly or certainly know, is height of unreasonable.

- Consciousness, even in less advanced beings like animals, comes with very specific traits. This includes being aware of the self and others to some extent, having needs and desires, seeking either social situations or isolation actively, emotions, and so forth.

- CONCLUSION: since consciousness axiomatically exists, cannot be doubted, and is proven ontologically distinct from matter, consciousness must be a separate “substance” or “thing”, an ontological primitive. We know this primitive because we have direct access to it, so we can know about the nature of consciousness. An ontological primitive – something immaterial and eternal – which desires, has emotions, experiences, is self-aware, etc. is the best possible definition for a God. Therefore at least one God exists.

THE NATURE/RISE OF CONSCIOUSNESS: THE INTERFERENCE FROM GOD(S)

- Not only are the properties of consciousness mutually exclusive from those of matter, but what we see consciousness is capable of, at least in humans, does not line up with the deterministic, linearly moving, material universe. For instance the mind of humans can question, manipulate, and even go against this linear, deterministic matter. Questioning is proven in this very writing, we are stepping outside of the system and looking in to figure out how it works, something which, to our knowledge, no other life does. If it does they certainly and evidently don’t to the same extent. We can manipulate nature such as the creation of complex chemical medications, the harnessing of electricity itself, the building of mega-structures that stand the tests of time [8-9], not to mention devices such as what you’re reading this on which would never have grown in a consciousness-less nature. Contradiction of this material nature is scientifically proven in things such as Self-Regulation, Cognitive Therapy, and Placebos without Deception [10-12]. All of these prove that we can willfully recognize our deterministic patterns and freely choose to act differently.

- The rise of the higher consciousness possessed by humans is suspicious even if we ignore that this consciousness came to be able to contradict nature, and doesn’t fit with what we know about biological evolution. This is specifically in the Great Leap Forward of the Upper Paleolithic Revolution, a scientifically proven event well known in anthropology. Mankind went from “just another animal” to an abstractly questioning and thinking being. Art arose, religion, language, math, cultures, agriculture, and society and civilization themselves. This has never occurred to the same extent in another species, not even close. Further, there was no genetic change that occurred at this time, and biologically modern humans had already existed for over 100,000 years when the UPR happened![13-15]

- CONCLUSION: The nature of consciousness the UPR birthed, along with the scientifically evidenced fact that it occurred abruptly and without biological evolution, suggest the interference of something outside of nature, i.e. a God.

TELEOLOGY OF MIND AND BODY: THE PLAN OF GOD(S)

- There is a Telos to the mind which was proven by psychological scientist Abraham Maslow in his Hierarchy of Needs. This shows the best path for human beings to follow in order to reach their ideal life, something that applies across times in cultures. Maslow showed that there is a “proper” hierarchy to human priorities, and a “proper” end-goal of Self-Actualization whatever that may before you. [16]

- There is a Telos to the body which was proven by the Yale School of Medicine, especially through the works of Dr. Harold Burr. It shows that there are external fields creating and controlling, not simply produced by, the physical forms of all life. Anything from trees to amphibians to human beings. Readings of these “Life Fields” can predict cancer, ovulation, birth defects, and much more. Unfortunately Dr. Burr believed this to be evidence of an intelligent plan (it is…), so it has been largely swept under the rug in favor of (much more profitable!) materialism. [17-19]

- CONCLUSION: There being a clear proper path for both all matter and consciousness shows that there is a Telos, or purpose, to human life and that we do not exist or evolve randomly.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: DIRECT EXPERIENCES OF GOD(S)

- Every single culture has experienced Gods. Hundreds of millions of people throughout human history and across cultures have experienced Gods, and these experiences have extremely similar characteristics. In fact these are so clear the can be categorized into 3 specific types of experiences (see Philosophy of Religion, and Introduction, by atheism William Rowe for example) [20]. Yes, the pantheons experienced seem to differ, but this is exactly what we would expect from cultures dependent on different geography, weather, economy, class system, and so forth. To say this shows the experiences are invalid would be like saying the stars don’t exist because cultures came up with different constellations.

- We also don’t inherently reject any human experience as delusion off the bat. We accept people experience pain, love, fear, happiness, depression, etc., despite never having actual access to their experiences. Yet when it comes to religious experiences many non-believers fall back on SPECIAL PLEADING, which is to judge this one type of experience differently from the rest. [21]

- CONCLUSION: since we would expect gods to be interpreted differently by cultures, and without reasons to reject religious experiences (which would have to be on an individual basis, such as pain), all we have is something all cultures have consistent experienced across time, which parsimony would suggest means they actually experienced them.

POLYTHEISM: MORE THAN ONE GOD

- There are experiences of all different gods throughout time, and so if one accepts experience (you have to without reasons specific to that individual case, such as intoxication or mental illness) they cannot say THEIR god is valid while others are not without SPECIAL PLEADING.

- Monotheistic gods have been logically defeated, such as by the problem of evil, lack of miracles, lack of answered prayers, etc.

- CONCLUSION: If you believe ANY gods exist, it is more reasonable to believe MANY do.

SOME References

1- Mind/Body Dualism, SEP
Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

2- About of Consciousness Axiom of Consciousness - Objectivism Wiki

3- Ontological Argument for Idealism by Bernardo Kastrup

4 to 7- Skepticism and Content Externalism Skepticism and Content Externalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

8- Making Medicines
Making medicines

9- Powering a Generation
Powering A Generation: Generating Electricity

10- How to Practice Self Regulation
How to Develop and Use Self-Regulation in Your Life

11- Cognitive Appraisal
Cognitive Appraisal

12- Placebos Without Deception
Placebos without Deception: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Irritable Bowel Syndrome

13- Framework of the UPR
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

14- Modern Humans Take the World
Was the Upper Paleolithic the Height of Artistic Brilliance?

15- UP Technology, Art, Culture
Paleolithic technology, culture, and art

16- Hierarchy of Needs
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

17- The Electrical Patterns of Life
The Electrical Patterns of Life; The Work of Dr. Harold S. Burr | Men & Women of Medicine | World Research Foundation

18- Harold Burr's Biofields
http://www.energymed.org/hbank/handouts/harold_burr_biofields.htm

19- Electromagnetics of Life (PDF)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw0xWf76krbzIG2DWHWuOP4q&cshid=1569537305106

20- Phi of Religion https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Religion-Introduction-William-Rowe/dp/0495007250

21- Special Pleading
Special Pleading

Click to expand...

ChristineM said:

See highlighted text

Definition of...

True : in accordance with fact or reality.

Valid : having a sound basis in logic or fact

Click to expand...

shmogie said:

The existence of God is quite logical using the discipline of logic. The existence of God has ample evidence,

depending upon how evidence is interpreted.

What is reality ?

Click to expand...

sealchan said:

I'm afraid you lost me at consciousness being proven to be distinct from matter, the rest of your arguement stands on that ground.

Click to expand...

Spartan said:

Evidence for God

Dr. Candy Gunther Brown, who earned her doctorate degree at Harvard University, is a professor of religious studies at Indiana University. She has a neutral outlook on religion, having said, “I do not assume the existence or nonexistence of a deity or other suprahuman forces.”

Brown cites two scientific, peer-reviewed studies that confirmed the efficacy of prayer on patients. She noted, “One of the first publicized studies was by Dr. Randolph Byrd, published in 1988, in the peer-reviewed Southern Medical Journal. It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study of four hundred subjects.” The results: “Patients in the prayer group had less congestive heart failure, fewer cardiac arrests, fewer episodes of pneumonia, were less often intubated and ventilated, and needed less diuretic and antibiotic therapy.” The editor of the Journal noted that the study had been peer-reviewed and was judged to be a properly designed and executed scientific investigation.

THEN, a decade or so later, a REPLICATION STUDY by Dr. William S. Harris and colleagues was published in the “Archives of Internal medicine.” Dr. Brown noted of this study, “This was a ‘gold standard’ study of the effects of intercessory prayer on almost a thousand consecutively admitted coronary patients. Half received prayer, the other half didn’t. And again, the group that received prayer had better outcomes than the control group. These studies affirmed that the recipients of prayer had better outcomes than those who didn’t receive prayer.” - "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel, pages 123-128

Click to expand...

Milton Platt said:

Why did you only select for the experiments which support your contention and not any of them which do not support your contention?

Click to expand...

Spartan said:

Why are you offended that some have evidence that prayer to God works?

Click to expand...

Milton Platt said:

Please show empirical evidence that there is consciousness absent a brain

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Easy:

Granted, a very low level of consciousness, but it still exists.

Click to expand...

Spartan said:

Why are you offended that some have evidence that prayer to God works?

Click to expand...

Milton Platt said:

Are you kidding me? This guy??? He's dumb as a brick.

Are you defining consciousness as anything that reacts in a chemical way?

Click to expand...

Milton Platt said:

Absolutely not offended by any evidence. one way or the other. It's just that by only quoting from the studies that agree with you, it makes it appear that the study outcomes were all positive. It's true that "some studies show.....". It is not true that here is a clear effect at all. In the ones that showed slight positive results.....is that the best a god can do?


A 2005 MANTRA (Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings) II study conducted a three-year clinical trial led by Duke University comparing intercessory prayer and MIT (Music, Imagery, and Touch) therapies for 748 cardiology patients. The study is regarded as the first time rigorous scientific protocols were applied on a large scale to assess the feasibility of intercessory prayer and other healing practices. The study produced null results and the authors concluded, "Neither masked prayer nor MIT therapy significantly improved clinical outcome after elective catheterization or percutaneous coronary intervention."[38] Neither study specified whether photographs were used or whether belief levels were measured in the agents or those performing the prayers.

The STEP project
Harvard professor Herbert Benson performed a "Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)" in 2006.[39] The STEP, commonly called the "Templeton Foundation prayer study" or "Great Prayer Experiment", used 1,802 coronary artery bypass surgery patients at six hospitals. Using double-blind protocols, patients were randomized into three groups, individual prayer receptiveness was not measured. The members of the experimental and control Groups 1 and 2 were informed they might or might not receive prayers, and only Group 1 received prayers. Group 3, which served as a test for possible psychosomatic effects, was informed they would receive prayers and subsequently did. Unlike some other studies, STEP attempted to standardize the prayer method. Only first names and last initial for patients were provided and no photographs were supplied. Catholics and members of the New Thought church Silent Unity who prayed for the patients "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".[40] Some participants complained that this mechanical way they were told to pray as part of the experiment was unusual for them. Complications of surgery occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1), 51 percent of those who did not receive it (Group 2), and 59 percent of patients who knew they would receive prayers (Group 3). There were no statistically significant differences in major complications or thirty-day mortality. In The God Delusion, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote, "It seems more probable that those patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered additional stress in consequence: performance anxiety', as the experimenters put it. Dr Charles Bethea, one of the researchers, said, "It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?'"[41] Study co-author Jeffery Dusek stated that: "Each study builds on others, and STEP advanced the design beyond what had been previously done. The findings, however, could well be due to the study limitations."[42] Team leader Benson stated that STEP was not the last word on the effects of intercessory prayer and that questions raised by the study will require additional answers.

Sicher
In 1998 Fred Sicher et al. performed a small scale double-blind randomized study of 40 patients with advanced AIDS.[14][15] The patients were in category C-3 with CD4 cell counts below 200 and each had at least one case of AIDS-defining illness.[16] The patients were randomly assigned to receive distant intercessory healing or none at all. The intercession took place by people in different parts of the United States who never had any contact with the patients. Both patients and physicians were blind to who received or did not receive intercession.[16] Six months later the prayer group had significantly fewer AIDS illnesses, less frequent doctor visits, and fewer days in the hospital.[15] However, CD4 counts and scores on other physiological tests had no significant variation between the two groups of patients.

Mayo clinic[edit]
A 2001 double-blind study at the Mayo Clinic randomized 799 discharged coronary surgery patients into a control group and an intercessory prayer group, which received prayers at least once a week from 5 intercessors per patient. Analyzing "primary end points" (death, cardiac arrest, rehospitalization, etc.) after 26 weeks, the researchers concluded "intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit."[17]

Click to expand...

Spartan said:

There's problems with your analysis. For instance, take the STEP project. The STEP study had a religious cult that didn't believe in intercessory prayer as it's prayer group. That group ("The Unity School of Christinity") had a Christian sounding name but it was anything but Christian.

Ron Rhodes, who has a doctorate in systematic theology and who has authored some sixty theological books, noted, "The Unity School of Christianity is definitely not Christian." Probe, a respected Christian journal, calls Unity "a classic new age cult that is not Christian in any aspect of its doctrines or teachings." Even the co-founder of the cult, Charles Fillmore, once wrote, "God never performs miracles."

So, as Dr. Brown (see the OP) noted, the studies are different because (the STEP study) "has a different inclusion” criteria. She also stated, the STEP study "is instructional on how NOT to conduct a study of Christian prayer."

Other studies often cited have been on "distant intercessory prayer." Dr. Brown (mentioned in my previous post) noted in her review of one such progressive study on patients with rheumatoid arthritis, published in the Southern Medical Journal" in 2000, where "They found no effects for distant intercessory prayer; however, they did find that patients experienced statistically significant improvement with direct-contact prayers, compared with patients who only received medical treatment." Jesus often laid hands on those he healed (i.e. Luke 4:40, etc.).

There are other factors in play. Healings by prayer are often clustered in certain geographical areas where there are movements of God (the Azuza Street Revival in Los Angeles is one such example), and more significantly in third world countries where the Gospel is making new inroads and where the Holy Spirit is moving with healings, etc., to reinforce Gospel teachings. You see that not only in the Gospels but also in the Book of Acts. Dr. Brown conducted studies in Mozambique where there had been many miracles reported, and in one study she conducted there, there were "significant visual improvements across the group." "In fact, Brown reported, "the average improvement in visual acuity was more than tenfold." - The Case for Miracles, pages 133-134.

Finally, it's important that the intercessory prayer group have anointed Christians who believe in the healing power of God, as opposed to other groups of individuals who do not have a particular unction for healing prayer. The two studies I cited had Christians in the intercessory prayer group.

Click to expand...

Milton Platt said:

.1 I fail to see how the beliefs of the people conducting a study group would affect a proper study. If that is so, then your own quoted studies as well as all other studies made should be thrown out. If you are suggesting that it caused them to design a poor study, you need to elaborate. Did it cause errors in the computation when adding up hits and misses? Did it change how prayer worked within the group? What are the actual flaws in the study? There have been flawed studies of this subject, if this is one, I am willing to dismiss the study.

2. Are you claiming that the distance between the person praying and the person being prayed for somehow effects the prayer? Why? Provide an explanation of the mechanism. What causes a god to be limited in his ability this way?

3. God heals in "cluster areas? Are you kidding me??????? Another limitation on god's ability?

4. So there were no Christians at all in any of the study groups I listed? Really? Where did you read this? "Christians who believe in the healing power of god"....as opposed to Christians who do not believe their god can heal? Where are those?

Click to expand...

Spartan said:

Yeah, God often heals in cluster areas. In areas of revival, etc. Didn't you notice in the book of Acts that where the anointed followers of Christ were, there were miracles?

Click to expand...

1137 said:

**DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE:** the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Click to expand...