100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The God Hypothesis | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Thanks for your post. Indeed, intelligence exists at the atomic levels and in all things. I agree. I have decided to stop posting in this forum as it seems there are not many scientific minds left at mingle. LOL. When they have no real answers they just ignore the questions or make condescending remarks about how ignorant I am. oh well. I have other things to do.  That was cute.  ~~~~~ I just now read though this entire thread and I'd just like to make a few comments. First off, to OP about measuring the affects of Prayer "scientifically". I don't see where the results of such studies would prove much toward a belief in any "God". The reason being that science has already verified the "placebo affect". People who believe that they are being treated for ailments tend to get better even when just given sugar tablets as pills. Thus people who pray and strongly believe in a deity may also get better for the very same reasons. So any studies concerning prayer could not be extrapolated to assume the existence of any God anyway. Secondly as Redykeulous pointed out even if it could be established that some sort of cosmic communication and healing was indeed going on, then which "god concept" would that prove? It could prove Eastern Mysticism. It could prove the "Law of Attraction". It could prove "The Power of Belief". It could prove the idea that the universe as a whole is a living conscious entity and will respond to people if asked. It could prove "Wicca". In fact, did they even perform these experiments using people from different spiritual 'faiths'? Are some faith's producing better results than other faiths? Sounds like the study was basically a flop anyway based on the excerpts that Redykeulous posted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that the question of God's existence is ultimately a scientific one. If God is real and has an effect on the universe we ought to be able to measure it. For example, prayer (if it is real) is a transfer of energy from one's own mind to God. Something must move out of the prayer's brain and go out into the universe in order to communicate with God. If so why couldn't we find a way to measure it or at least measure it's effects? This isn't a debate about whether or not God is real. It's about whether or not God's existence is a scientific question. There was a real scientific study of prayer done in 2006. The results can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html I look forward to reading your thoughts. There is a very simple solution to this minor conundrum. If God is defined as being the sum totality of the Universe then we have a self consistent and scientifically sound solution to the question of the existence of God. By this definition God exists just as the Universe exists. There is only one God with this definition and viewpoint and this God is Omnipresent and Omniscient and is the source of all matter and life in the Universe. There is no real problem defining God this way. I like self-consistent solutions to such problems so this works for me. It is essentially a pantheistic view of God consistent with most religious beliefs. The power of prayer must also come from this pantheistic single God. The studies of the benefits of prayer which I have seen appeared to be sound and point to a health benefit of optimism and hope and positive visualization. In this sense prayer is not asking some anthropomorphic God to grant you a wish like Aladdin's genie. Rather, prayer is better thought of as positive meditation which calms us and fortifies us psychologically with optimism and hope. This visualization has a real positive benefit of assisting us in planning for the future and appears to also affect our body chemistry in a positive way easing many ailments.  It confuses subject, object, and concept. It whitewashes distinctions, glosses over why "God" is important to people, and throws away any perspective god could possibly have. To define something requires separating it from everything it is not. To open the set up to include everything throws away any understanding of what it means to be that and not this, its an anti-definition. The God we are trying to define however is in fact infinite and unknowable so how are you possibly going to adequately define God? It is folly to attempt to define the infinite with minutiae. The above definition does not throw away any understanding but reveals the extent of God. It is not an anti-definition...but instead is a self-consistent way of expressing the beauty and grandeur of the concept of God. To define God as anything less than everything and eternity is like trying to define the ocean as a droplet of salty water. Such a definition misses almost the entirety of the picture and limits oneself to an infinitesimal and unacceptably inadequate understanding of the concept.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, to OP about measuring the affects of Prayer "scientifically". I don't see where the results of such studies would prove much toward a belief in any "God". The reason being that science has already verified the "placebo affect". People who believe that they are being treated for ailments tend to get better even when just given sugar tablets as pills. Thus people who pray and strongly believe in a deity may also get better for the very same reasons. So any studies concerning prayer could not be extrapolated to assume the existence of any God anyway. You didn't read the results of the study did you? It seems people that had others praying for them did worse and had more complications than those that didn't know they were prayed for and those that weren't prayed for at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We will pray for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, to OP about measuring the affects of Prayer "scientifically". I don't see where the results of such studies would prove much toward a belief in any "God". The reason being that science has already verified the "placebo affect". People who believe that they are being treated for ailments tend to get better even when just given sugar tablets as pills. Thus people who pray and strongly believe in a deity may also get better for the very same reasons. So any studies concerning prayer could not be extrapolated to assume the existence of any God anyway. You didn't read the results of the study did you? It seems people that had others praying for them did worse and had more complications than those that didn't know they were prayed for and those that weren't prayed for at all. No I didn't read the study. But in all honesty I wouldn't be too impressed by these kinds of studies in any case. The scientific method works well for simple things like laws of physics. But when it comes to something as complex as human nature I think "scientists" are fooling themselves to even think that the "scientific method" of inquiry can even be legitimately applied. There are simply too many uncontrollable factors involved. And because of that the 'statistics' become meaningless. In other words, they would need far larger samples than they actually have to make up for the myriad of uncontrollable factors. Why scientists and mathematicians don't realize this is beyond me. It should be obvious I would think. In fact, if you accept these results as being meaningful then we must conclude that prayer does make a difference. Just not a good difference. I could actually offer a hypothesis for this based on witchcraft (or various other philosophies that allow people's thoughts to have an affect on others). People who 'pray' could actually be casting 'spells' without realizing it. And since they don't know what they are doing they could actually make things worse. For example. Say someone is diagnosed with "cancer". So everyone starts praying, "Please God cure John Doe's CANCER". What does the "universe hear" in all these prayers? It basically hears, "John Doe" and "Cancer". So John Doe's cancer get's WORSE. What they should have been doing was praying to God that John doe is HEALTHY. Then the universe hears, "John Doe" and "Healthy", and it responds to that. So people need to be trained on how to properly cast spells if they want to pray right. They need to learn to ask for what they wish for, NOT for what they wish to get RID of. Seriously. Maybe should someone should do a study on that? ~~~~~~ I read books on witchcraft, and some of these authors do indeed offer "spells for getting rid of disease etc, with extremely negative lyrics or incantations. Here listen to this! This is right out of a very popular book on witchcraft: He has you set up an altar with a fiery cauldron and perform some other ritual preparations and then recite the following incantation! Burn this sickness in your flame burn this sickness that would maim burn this illness by your might burn this illness in your light heal me of this awful pain heal me of all that's bane heal me and set me free with my will so mote it be! Excuse me? How many negative words are in this incantation? Sickness twice, illness twice, maim, pain, bane. Please don't EVER perform a ritual or spell incantation like this one! This could bring you death!  In fact, and I'm not joking, the author of this book died a slow miserable death of cancer. And these are the kind of lyrics he was writing for his incantations. I'm sure he meant well, but unfortunately he didn't truly understand how witchcraft actually works. If he was performing these kinds of rituals on a regular basis it's no wonder he died of cancer. Don't ever use negative words in an incantation, a prayer, or a spell. Don't even mention what it is that you'd like to get rid of! Don't even THINK of it if you can possibly avoid it. Ask for what you WANT. Ask and you shall receive. Focus solely on what you want. Use positive words, mention what you WANT as many times as you like, but don't even think about what it is that you are trying to get rid of. Don't even pray for someone to "Get Well" because that itself implies that they aren't currently well. Ask that they are healthy right now in the moment. "I pray that John Doe is in good health. I pray that he feels good. I pray that he is happy and well. I pray that he is in good spirits." That's a GOOD prayer. Don't ask for this to happen in the FUTURE pray that it is currently true. Right NOW. Whereas the following is a bad prayer: "Dear God, please heal John doe from his disease. Please remove his cancer and take away his sickness. etc". No no no! Never mention what you DON'T WANT in a prayer. And don't contribute to confirming that he's SICK right NOW. For right NOW is when you are praying!!!! Don't pray for the morrow. Pray for the NOW. Maybe that's what people were doing in their prayers and that's why people were getting sicker instead of healthier. They were basically "casting bad vibrations in John Doe's name" and not even realizing it. Thoughts are vibrations! The term "bad vibes" has real meaning.  Ok, I'm done with my lecture on how to properly pray and conduct good spellwork. I hope someone benefits from this. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will pray for you too James. I pray that James will end his wicked wicked ways!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will pray for you too James. I pray that James will end his wicked wicked ways! Oh no! Now I'll become wickedly wicked for sure!  Just for that I'm going to have Rev Rabbit sing your theme song again.  http://users.csonline.net/designer/ideas/slow.htm See? I'm already wickedly wickeder. That's how FAST prayer can WORK! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 04/18/11 12:59 PM
|
 Abracadabra!   <<-----Abra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understand the meaning of "image" and "likeness"?
Once that is understood, then you can begin to see the bigger picture. Historically, (documented).. we have to take a written word and dicern wether or not there is any truth to it. There was someone who proved that WE are capable of being more than we are led to believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understand the meaning of "image" and "likeness"? Once that is understood, then you can begin to see the bigger picture. Historically, (documented).. we have to take a written word and dicern wether or not there is any truth to it. There was someone who proved that WE are capable of being more than we are led to believe. Who proved that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understand the meaning of "image" and "likeness"? Once that is understood, then you can begin to see the bigger picture. Historically, (documented).. we have to take a written word and dicern wether or not there is any truth to it. There was someone who proved that WE are capable of being more than we are led to believe. Who proved that? I'll answer your question with a single word. Crucified. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understand the meaning of "image" and "likeness"? Once that is understood, then you can begin to see the bigger picture. Historically, (documented).. we have to take a written word and dicern wether or not there is any truth to it. There was someone who proved that WE are capable of being more than we are led to believe. Who proved that? I'll answer your question with a single word. Crucified. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Understand the meaning of "image" and "likeness"? Once that is understood, then you can begin to see the bigger picture. Historically, (documented).. we have to take a written word and dicern wether or not there is any truth to it. There was someone who proved that WE are capable of being more than we are led to believe. Who proved that? I'll answer your question with a single word. Crucified. Oh I thought you were talking about real tangible proof. I do believe that WE ARE capable of being more than we have been led to believe. The only proof is in the being of that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
EasternSquirrel
on
Fri 04/29/11 11:57 AM
|
|
Understand the meaning of "image" and "likeness"? Once that is understood, then you can begin to see the bigger picture. Historically, (documented).. we have to take a written word and dicern wether or not there is any truth to it. There was someone who proved that WE are capable of being more than we are led to believe. Who proved that? I'll answer your question with a single word. Crucified. Jeeeez ..... you haven't read mother goose lately, have you? You got part of your rebuttal correct .... about the rash of crucifixions. But you misplaced when that took place historically. Try around 40 years later ... about 70 A.D. .. If you look at various historic documents (from various authoring countries), it's not too terribly difficult to piece together what happened. Oh yeah, there is documentation, but don't take my word for it. Search for yourself and you'll see it more clearly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They are just both books for children's bed time stories that have the hidden "do good" messages in the stories...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
EasternSquirrel
on
Fri 04/29/11 12:07 PM
|
|
They are just both books for children's bed time stories that have the hidden "do good" messages in the stories... Oh, I wouldn't call the book of Isaiah (the one dug up from the Caves at Cumran) fictional. Even if the Roman army built up an encampment around Massada, laying seize against a "rebellious nation" (under the leadership of a (hero/false messiah) take your pick). Then they drew lots to slay themselves rather than submit to Roman "subjugation"/"punishment". You say fictional. So you say. I say, read history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They are just both books for children's bed time stories that have the hidden "do good" messages in the stories... Oh, I wouldn't call the book of Isaiah (the one dug up from the Caves at Cumran) fictional. Even if the Roman army built up an encampment around Massada, laying seize against a "rebellious nation" (under the leadership of a (hero/false messiah) take your pick). Then they drew lots to slay themselves rather than submit to Roman "subjugation"/"punishment". You say fictional. So you say. I say, read history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They are just both books for children's bed time stories that have the hidden "do good" messages in the stories... Oh, I wouldn't call the book of Isaiah (the one dug up from the Caves at Cumran) fictional. Even if the Roman army built up an encampment around Massada, laying seize against a "rebellious nation" (under the leadership of a (hero/false messiah) take your pick). Then they drew lots to slay themselves rather than submit to Roman "subjugation"/"punishment". You say fictional. So you say. I say, read history. Like I said. READ the history. Don't tell me about it. Look it up for yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The real history of the Bible would shock you.
|
|
|
|
|
