Does Prayer Work? Is There a God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Pat, I hope you realize my post was laced with sarcasm. The kind of sarcasm that causes me to sigh when I see this ridiculously insane interjection - “Why No Amputees” - into this and other threads. I think someone in Washington state knows right where to find the “secret mushrooms.”[/quote]

The intent of the amputee argument isn’t to call out limb restoration per se, since as you justifiably point out, there are other examples of healings (e.g., toe stubbing) which similarly haven’t been documented.

The point is that there is a categorical qualitative difference between healings ascribed to divine means, and all the other kinds of healings that could theoretically occur.

Do you think it is just coincidence that every one of these so-called miracle healings have a totally viable alternate mundane explanation?

For something to be truly miraculous, it should be impossible otherwise. Not just unlikely, but literally impossible, like limb restoration.

When people claim miraculous recovery from cancer, it means nothing, because spontaneous cancer remission is known to exist.

The only way you can rely on these “miracles” as evidence for divine intervention would be to definitely rule out alternate explanations. Unfortunately, we don’t have any such cases (e.g., limb restoration) which demonstrate this. They can all be explained without needing to invoke supernatural intervention.

242

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
As for the others you mentioned those are just names for the same, one God, but thanks for playing.

Just because Muslims worship one god doesn’t mean they worship the same god you do. Their concept of god and their general theology is very different from yours. And let’s not even get into Krishna. If I worship Pook’s Vacuum Cleaner, does that mean I am worshiping the same god as you, since I am only worshiping one god?
[/quote]
They are following an Abrahamic tradition, the radical crisis within islam not withstanding, it’s it the same one God. Seriously, this is common knowledge. Whether, islam’s God is different from Judeo/Christianity’s understanding is a totally different debate and not in anyway related to whether or not prayer works.

[quote]
There is no such thing as an empirical certainty of 99.9%.

You’re mistaken. There are many examples of scientific studies that have drawn conclusions ranging from p < .05 to p < .001.

I did not say God doesn’t heal people. There are examples all over the world where that has happened. Go find yourself one, who has a legitimate claims of healing and ask them there experience. Then prove to them empirically, that they were not healed by miraculous means.

All you have to do is show that the incidence of these “miracle healings” doesn’t exceed what would be expected by chance alone. That is exactly what was demonstrated in the prayer study for cardiac patients.[/quote]

Those “conclusions ranging from p < .05 to p < .001” are statistical probabilities and not empirical certainties. No statistician in his right mind would ever claim certaintiesâ?¦

And you keep harping on the one study. This one question alone will prove it was scientifically invalid to begin with. What is the test measuring, whether or not prayer works or whether or not there is a God. If you are just testing the hypothesis that prayer works or does not, you have to assume God exists otherwise a rather large constant is missing from the experiment, rendering it invalid. If you are trying to prove that God does not exist based on whether or not he answer’s prayers in a statistically significant way, then the experiment falls way short of it’s goal and is invalid because it is insufficient by design, to answer the question. The experiment cannot be designed to answer bothâ?¦
All you can tell from this study is that in the case of these 700 some odd folks that were prayed for, for the purpose of this experiment, showed not statistically significant differences in recovery rates. It can show more than that. I would love to see the statistical projection of future events based on this studyâ?¦ I can assure you it’s not in the p<.05 to p< .001 range.

243

[quote]pat wrote:
Whether, islam’s God is different from Judeo/Christianity’s understanding is a totally different debate[/quote]

You’re the one that said they worship the same god as you. Obviously, if the Muslim theology and concept of god are diametrically different from yours, it’s impossible for them to worship the same god, irrespective of common ancestry. I can pray to PVC (Pookie’s Vacuum Cleaner) as the one and only true god, but that doesn’t mean it is the same as your god with another name.

If it were an empirical certainty, it would be 100% probable. You said that 99.9% probability never happens, and you’re dead wrong. It happens all the time in science. I would love to see a single religious hypothesis pass even the p < .05 standard of statistical probability.

To test the hypothesis that prayer results in higher recovery rates does not require the assumption that “god” exists. It only requires demonstrating whether or not prayer results in different recovery rates. If you find a difference, then you can speculate explanatory hypotheses for the noted difference, but you don’t need an explanatory mechanism to note that a difference exists. By failing to find a difference, there is obviously no need for an explanatory mechanism in the first place.

[quote]I would love to see the statistical projection of future events based on this studyâ?¦ I can assure you it’s not in the p<.05 to p< .001 range.
[/quote]

Statistics take into account the probability of the same result being observed in future studies, otherwise they would be useless. If p < .05, this means that the same result would be observed in 19 of 20 similar studies.

244

You’re the one that said they worship the same god as you. Obviously, if the Muslim theology and concept of god are diametrically different from yours, it’s impossible for them to worship the same god, irrespective of common ancestry. I can pray to PVC (Pookie’s Vacuum Cleaner) as the one and only true god, but that doesn’t mean it is the same as your god with another name.
[/quote]

There is not a muslim God, vs. Christian God vs. Jewish God, there is only God; theological philosophies and practices do not change who God is. That is a completely different conversation. We can have that conversation in a different thread; it is irrelevant to this one. It does not matter to this conversation whether or not different people pray to different entities to which they refer to as God.

[/quote]
Those “conclusions ranging from p < .05 to p < .001” are statistical probabilities and not empirical certainties.

If it were an empirical certainty, it would be 100% probable. You said that 99.9% probability never happens, and you’re dead wrong. It happens all the time in science. I would love to see a single religious hypothesis pass even the p < .05 standard of statistical probability.

If you are just testing the hypothesis that prayer works or does not, you have to assume God exists otherwise a rather large constant is missing from the experiment, rendering it invalid.

To test the hypothesis that prayer results in higher recovery rates does not require the assumption that “god” exists. It only requires demonstrating whether or not prayer results in different recovery rates. If you find a difference, then you can speculate explanatory hypotheses for the noted difference, but you don’t need an explanatory mechanism to note that a difference exists. By failing to find a difference, there is obviously no need for an explanatory mechanism in the first place.

I would love to see the statistical projection of future events based on this studyÃ?¢?Ã?¦ I can assure you it’s not in the p<.05 to p< .001 range.

Statistics take into account the probability of the same result being observed in future studies, otherwise they would be useless. If p < .05, this means that the same result would be observed in 19 of 20 similar studies.[/quote]

That is correct you are speculating based on the results of a flawed study. Your variable cannot be a subjective, moving target, who may or may not act according to your will.

245

[quote]pat wrote:
It does not matter to this conversation whether or not different people pray to different entities to which they refer to as God.[/quote]

Of course it matters. The whole point is that praying to your god is no more valid than praying to the 10-armed deity Kali, which is no more valid than praying to PVC. Of course you believe that your god is the “true god” who really does answer your prayers, but so do worshippers of Kali and PVC. They are just as confident in their beliefs as you are in yours, and logically it is impossible for all of you to be right. Do you not see that?

[quote]That is correct you are speculating based on the results of a flawed study. Your variable cannot be a subjective, moving target, who may or may not act according to your will.
[/quote]

The study isn’t about god. It’s about the effects of prayer, or the lack thereof. Clearly, prayer makes zero difference in real world outcomes.

246

[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
It’s like trying to measure how much your love affects your wife or girl friend. If you take an event and try to ascertain how much your love would alter the outcome of that event that involves wife/gf could you measure that? Of course you cannot.

This study is specifically about the health of patients who were prayed for. Much research has been done on the relative health of married women (presumably in love) vs their single peers. Seems to me you can you measure how much love alters the outcome.

How do you they were loved? What is the measuring stick for that? [/quote]

There are many ways. Ask their husbands, ask their friends about their husbands, give their husbands brain scans while you show them pictures of their wives, or measure their seretonin and dopamin responses while their wife talks about the weather, ect ect. Check these methods against each other and use a huge sample size and this should be a pretty easy study to design.

247

[quote]pat wrote:

That is correct you are speculating based on the results of a flawed study. Your variable cannot be a subjective, moving target, who may or may not act according to your will.
[/quote]

The study is very well done. The only argument I’ve seen on this board that had any chance at invalidating it was that god would intentionally muck up the results because we were trying to observe him in action, or ‘testing’ him. This would invalidate the study, but it would also invalidate ALL prayers. I mean, who has ever prayed about anything, and then legitimately not checked to see if the prayer was answered?

248

[quote]pat wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
pat wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote:
forlife wrote:
Of course, the point of asking about amputees is that spontaneous limb restoration is impossible. It would be a real miracle for it to happen. It’s not just a coincidence that the religious “miracles” claimed by people can all be explained by other means, but that real “miracles” which couldn’t happen spontaneously never happen.

Exactly. Its an Impossible miracle. Yet I thought that god was able to do anything.

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE HASN’T?

Ok do me a favor and do the research. I have already. It has never happened. Look all you want in every source possible and, seriously, if you find any times in history where it has happened send me the info. Id like to read about it.

So you know have studied the case for all amputees who has ever lived and prayed or was prayed for limb restoration and you are certain that nobody in the history of man kind has ever received their limb? …YES

249

ITT cop outs and circular logic.

Clip if you are serious about this, then good on you for actually using your brain unlike so many others in this thread.

250

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Whether, islam’s God is different from Judeo/Christianity’s understanding is a totally different debate

You’re the one that said they worship the same god as you. Obviously, if the Muslim theology and concept of god are diametrically different from yours, it’s impossible for them to worship the same god, irrespective of common ancestry. I can pray to PVC (Pookie’s Vacuum Cleaner) as the one and only true god, but that doesn’t mean it is the same as your god with another name.
[/quote]
First, you are wrong. Second, it is irrelevant to the debate at hand. You are trying to generate a Red Herring to draw me into a trap.

I never said 99% probability doesn’t happen, I said 99% certainty. Words mean things and those two have different definitions.

[quote]
If you are just testing the hypothesis that prayer works or does not, you have to assume God exists otherwise a rather large constant is missing from the experiment, rendering it invalid.

To test the hypothesis that prayer results in higher recovery rates does not require the assumption that “god” exists. It only requires demonstrating whether or not prayer results in different recovery rates. If you find a difference, then you can speculate explanatory hypotheses for the noted difference, but you don’t need an explanatory mechanism to note that a difference exists. By failing to find a difference, there is obviously no need for an explanatory mechanism in the first place.

I would love to see the statistical projection of future events based on this studyÃ?¢?Ã?¦ I can assure you it’s not in the p<.05 to p< .001 range.

Statistics take into account the probability of the same result being observed in future studies, otherwise they would be useless. If p < .05, this means that the same result would be observed in 19 of 20 similar studies.[/quote]

19 of 20? That would mean 95% probability, not 99.5%

Also, if you are praying to God, you have to assume he exists otherwise what is the point. Are you going to pray to nothing in hopes that nothing might answer your prayers?

251

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:
It’s like trying to measure how much your love affects your wife or girl friend. If you take an event and try to ascertain how much your love would alter the outcome of that event that involves wife/gf could you measure that? Of course you cannot.

This study is specifically about the health of patients who were prayed for. Much research has been done on the relative health of married women (presumably in love) vs their single peers. Seems to me you can you measure how much love alters the outcome.

How do you they were loved? What is the measuring stick for that?

There are many ways. Ask their husbands, ask their friends about their husbands, give their husbands brain scans while you show them pictures of their wives, or measure their seretonin and dopamin responses while their wife talks about the weather, ect ect. Check these methods against each other and use a huge sample size and this should be a pretty easy study to design.[/quote]

Oh brother, really? Give 'em brain scans? That might work on newly weds, but love is a lot more than a good feeling. Still, can increase dopamine levels equal love? So, if you walked up to me and shook my hand and your dopamine levels happened to jump, does that mean you love me? I guess coke heads are just a bunch of lovers then because there neurotransmitter levels jump like hell when they toot.

252

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

That is correct you are speculating based on the results of a flawed study. Your variable cannot be a subjective, moving target, who may or may not act according to your will.

The study is very well done. The only argument I’ve seen on this board that had any chance at invalidating it was that god would intentionally muck up the results because we were trying to observe him in action, or ‘testing’ him. This would invalidate the study, but it would also invalidate ALL prayers. I mean, who has ever prayed about anything, and then legitimately not checked to see if the prayer was answered?

[/quote]

The study uses the right words to say it was well done. But it was stupid to begin with. You cannot quantify the results of prayer, that is not what prayer is about, first. Second, the study has to necessarily, at least for the sake of the study, has to assume God exists. You could not have the study done where people were praying randomly to anything.
Third, if you are assuming that God exists, you are trying to predict the behaviour of something then that has a will, knows the plight of each person being prayed for and not being prayed for and knows you are conducting a study or at least planning to analyze results. Do you think that God is there to play along and just show that prayer is statistically significant, or would you do the right thing for each person?

So let’s make you God for a minute, actually just a dad. Let’s say you have 4 kids, and they are all sick. Further, let’s say you have medicine and a recovery plan for each kid. Now your wife and several good friends have gotten together and ask that you help two of the kids, but say nothing of the other two. Are you just going to help the ones you were asked to help? Are you going to help all 4? Or would you get pissed off, walk out and help none?
Now, measure the effects of the asking to help only the two kids.

That is tantamount to what this “study” tried to measure. God has to do the right thing, despite what people request. Sometimes the right thing may seem unpleasant to us, but it’s the right thing nonetheless.

253

[quote]forlife wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Pat, I hope you realize my post was laced with sarcasm. The kind of sarcasm that causes me to sigh when I see this ridiculously insane interjection - “Why No Amputees” - into this and other threads. I think someone in Washington state knows right where to find the “secret mushrooms.”

The intent of the amputee argument isn’t to call out limb restoration per se, since as you justifiably point out, there are other examples of healings (e.g., toe stubbing) which similarly haven’t been documented.

The point is that there is a categorical qualitative difference between healings ascribed to divine means, and all the other kinds of healings that could theoretically occur.

Do you think it is just coincidence that every one of these so-called miracle healings have a totally viable alternate mundane explanation?

For something to be truly miraculous, it should be impossible otherwise. Not just unlikely, but literally impossible, like limb restoration.

When people claim miraculous recovery from cancer, it means nothing, because spontaneous cancer remission is known to exist.

The only way you can rely on these “miracles” as evidence for divine intervention would be to definitely rule out alternate explanations. Unfortunately, we don’t have any such cases (e.g., limb restoration) which demonstrate this. They can all be explained without needing to invoke supernatural intervention.[/quote]

The point of the amputee thing is to be a strawman. It has nothing to do with miraculous claims. If someone claims a miraculous recovery and there is not a mundane explanation and they aren’t necessarily lying then it should be taken on a case by case basis.

254

[quote]pat wrote:
First, you are wrong.[/quote]

A god by any other name, right? Even if you believe it is just one of 100 gods, and happens to have 10 arms, it is still the same god as the one you worship. Right.

It’s not irrelevant, because the point is billions of people pray to gods of their own making, and all of them manufacture evidence to convince themselves that their prayers are answered. If you don’t see that with other religions, it’s no surprise you can’t see it with your own religion.

In statistics, 99% probability IS identical to 99% certainty. You are 99% certain that the observed effect was not due to chance alone.

We were discussing p < .05

.05 = 5%

19/20 = 5%

The people praying in the study believed in a god. The point is that despite this faith, their prayers made zero difference in the health outcomes of the cardiac patients they prayed for.

255

[quote]pat wrote:
So let’s make you God for a minute, actually just a dad. Let’s say you have 4 kids, and they are all sick. Further, let’s say you have medicine and a recovery plan for each kid. Now your wife and several good friends have gotten together and ask that you help two of the kids, but say nothing of the other two. Are you just going to help the ones you were asked to help? Are you going to help all 4? Or would you get pissed off, walk out and help none?
Now, measure the effects of the asking to help only the two kids.

That is tantamount to what this “study” tried to measure. God has to do the right thing, despite what people request. Sometimes the right thing may seem unpleasant to us, but it’s the right thing nonetheless.
[/quote]

If that is the case, why pray at all? You’re saying that your god would do exactly the same thing regardless of whether or not you prayed to him/her/it.

256

[quote]pat wrote:
If someone claims a miraculous recovery and there is not a mundane explanation and they aren’t necessarily lying then it should be taken on a case by case basis. [/quote]

If someone claims a miraculous recovery that doesn’t have a mundane explanation, then their claim can be objectively confirmed and documented.

Of course, this never happens. Either people can’t back up their claims, or their “miraculous recovery” has a possible mundane explanation.

Which is why amputee restoration, or any other miracle you could think of which doesn’t have a mundane explanation, is important.

257

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
First, you are wrong.

A god by any other name, right? Even if you believe it is just one of 100 gods, and happens to have 10 arms, it is still the same god as the one you worship. Right.

Second, it is irrelevant to the debate at hand.

It’s not irrelevant, because the point is billions of people pray to gods of their own making, and all of them manufacture evidence to convince themselves that their prayers are answered. If you don’t see that with other religions, it’s no surprise you can’t see it with your own religion.
[/quote]
It is completely irrelevant because a) it’s not true. b) it’s not relevant to the topic.
If you want to discuss the existence God, his nature, etc. That is a separate topic.

No it is not in the same ballpark…

probâ??aâ??bilâ??iâ??tyâ??â??/Ë?prÉ?bÉ?Ë?bɪlɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [prob-uh-bil-i-tee] Show IPA
â??noun, plural -ties. 1. the quality or fact of being probable.
2. a strong likelihood or chance of something: The probability of the book’s success makes us optimistic.
3. a probable event, circumstance, etc.: Our going to China is a probability.
4. Statistics. a. the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.
b. the relative frequency with which an event occurs or is likely to occur.

cerâ??tainâ??tyâ??â??/Ë?sÉ?rtnti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sur-tn-tee] Show IPA
â??noun, plural -ties. 1. the state of being certain.
2. something certain; an assured fact.

Yup, looks different to me…

My bad.

So what was the study trying to discover, whether or not God exists or whether praying to him for cardiac patients for the point of a study will yield different results.
The study didn’t say prayer made zero difference, it said it wasn’t statistically different from the non-prayed for group. What we don’t know is if the people pray themselves. If others outside the prayer groups prayed for the patients, whether or not they were prayed for, etc. There is a whole world of variables that can play a part in this idiotic study…Believe it if you want to, don’t tell me to because it reeks of horseshit.

258

[quote]GrandpaButch wrote:
Buff HardBack wrote: Yeah and you just have issues.

GrandpaButch wrote: Pray tell then DEAR SISSY what are they? Name them!

Miracle

Author: Matthew G. Easton.

A true miracle is an event in the external world brought about by the immediate agency or the simple volition of God, operating without the use of means capable of being discerned by the senses, and designed to authenticate the divine commission of a religious teacher and the truth of his message (John 2:18; Matt. 12:38).

It is an occurrence at once above nature and above man. It shows the intervention of a power that is not limited by the laws either of matter or of mind, a power interrupting the fixed laws which govern their movements, a supernatural power.

"The suspension or violation of the laws of nature involved in miracles is nothing more than is constantly taking place around us. One force counteracts another: vital force keeps the chemical laws of matter in abeyance; and muscular force can control the action of physical force. When a man raises a weight from the ground, the law of gravity is neither suspended nor violated, but counteracted by a stronger force. The same is true as to the walking of Christ on the water and the swimming of iron at the command of the prophet.

The simple and grand truth that the universe is not under the exclusive control of physical forces, but that everywhere and always there is above, separate from and superior to all else, an infinite personal will, not superceding, but directing and controlling all physical causes, acting with or without them."

God ordinarily effects his purpose through the agency of second causes; but he has the power also of effecting his purpose immediately and without the intervention of second causes, i.e., of invading the fixed order, and thus of working miracles. Thus we affirm the possibility of miracles, the possibility of a higher hand intervening to control or reverse nature’s ordinary movements.

In the New Testament these four Greek words are principally used to designate miracles:

Semeion, a �??�??�??�?�¢??sign�??�??�??�?�¢??, i.e., an evidence of a divine commission; an attestation of a divine message (Matt. 12:38,39; 16:1, 4; Mark 8:11; Luke 11:16; 23:8; John 2:11, 18, 23; Acts 6:8, etc.); a token of the presence and working of God; the seal of a higher power.

Terata, �??�??�??�?�¢??wonders;�??�??�??�?�¢?? wonder-causing events; portents; producing astonishment in the beholder (Acts 2:19).

Dunameis, �??�??�??�?�¢??might works;�??�??�??�?�¢?? works of superhuman power (Acts 2:22; Rom. 15:19; 2 Thess. 2:9); of a new and higher power.

Erga, �??�??�??�?�¢??works;�??�??�??�?�¢?? the works of Him who is �??�??�??�?�¢??wonderful in working�??�??�??�?�¢?? (John 5:20, 36).

Miracles are seals of a divine mission. The sacred writers appealed to them as proofs that they were messengers of God. Our Lord also appealed to miracles as a conclusive proof of his divine mission (John 5:20, 36; 10:25, 38). Thus, being out of the common course of nature and beyond the power of man, they are fitted to convey the impression of the presence and power of God.

Where miracles are there certainly God is. The man, therefore, who works a miracle affords thereby clear proof that he comes with the authority of God; they are his credentials that he is God’s messenger. The teacher points to these credentials, and they are a proof that he speaks with the authority of God. He boldly says, “God bears me witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles.”

The credibility of miracles is established by the evidence of the senses on the part of those who are witnesses of them, and to all others by the testimony of such witnesses. The witnesses were competent, and their testimony is trustworthy. Unbelievers, following Hume, deny that any testimony can prove a miracle, because they say miracles are impossible. We have shown that miracles are possible, and surely they can be borne witness to. Surely they are credible when we have abundant and trustworthy evidence of their occurrence. They are credible just as any facts of history well authenticated are credible.

Miracles, it is said, are contrary to experience. Of course they are contrary to our experience, but that does not prove that they were contrary to the experience of those who witnessed them. We believe a thousand facts, both of history and of science, that are contrary to our experience, but we believe them on the ground of competent testimony.

An atheist or a pantheist must, as a matter of course, deny the possibility of miracles; but to one who believes in a personal God, who in his wisdom may see fit to interfere with the ordinary processes of nature, miracles are not impossible, nor are they incredible.

Author: Matthew G. Easton.
List of miracles recorded in the Bible (partial list)
Creation of the universe, including plants, animals and humans (Genesis 1-2)
The flood (Gen. 7, 8)

SO CHECK OUT A PARTIAL LIST OF MIRACLES OF THE BIBLE,AND BEAR IN MIND THE JEWS LIVED THRU ,AND WITNESSED MOST IF NOT ALL OF THESE ,AND WE STILL HAVE THE JEWS DON’T WE! WAKE UP!

Confusion of languages (tongues) at Babel (Gen. 11:1-9)
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24)
Lot’s wife turned into a Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??pillar of saltÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? (Gen. 19:26)
Birth of Isaac at Gerar (Gen. 21:1)
The burning bush not consumed (Ex. 3:3)
Aaron’s rod changed into a serpent (Ex. 7:10-12)
The ten plagues of Egypt (Ex. 7:20-12:30)
waters become blood
frogs
lice
flies
murrain
boils
thunder and hail
locusts
darkness
death of the first-born
Red Sea divided; Israel passes through (See: Passage of Red Sea) (Ex. 14:21-31)
Waters of Marah sweetened (Ex. 15:23-25)
Manna sent daily, except on Sabbath (Ex. 16:14-35)
Water from the rock at Rephidim (Ex. 17:5-7)
Nadab and Abihu consumed for offering �??�??�??�?�¢??strange fire�??�??�??�?�¢?? (Lev. 10:1, 2)
Some of the people consumed by fire at Taberah (Num. 11:1-3)
The earth opens and swallows up Korah and his company. (Num. 16:32-34)
Fire at Kadesh (Num. 16:35-45)
Plague at Kadesh (Num. 16:46-50)
Aaron’s rod budding at Kadesh (Num. 17:8)
Water from the rock, smitten twice by Moses, Desert of Zin (Num. 20:7-11)
The brazen serpent in the Desert of Zin (Num. 21:8, 9)
Balaam’s ass speaks (Num. 22:21-35)
The Jordan divided, so that Israel passed over dryshod near the city of Adam (Josh. 3:14-17)
The walls of Jericho fall down (Josh. 6:6-20)
The sun and moon stayed. (Josh. 10:12-14)
Hailstorm. (Josh. 10:12-14)
The strength of Samson (Judg. 14-16)
Water from a hollow place “that is in Lehi” (Judg. 15:19)
Dagon falls twice before the ark. (1 Sam. 5:1-12)
Emerods on the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:1-12)
Men of Beth-shemesh smitten for looking into the ark (1 Sam. 6:19)
Thunderstorm causes a panic among the Philistines at Eben-ezer (1 Sam. 7:10-12)
Thunder and rain in harvest at Gilgal (1 Sam. 12:18)
Sound in the mulberry trees at Rephaim (2 Sam. 5:23-25)
Uzzah smitten for touching the ark at Perez-uzzah (2 Sam. 6:6, 7)
Jeroboam’s hand withered. (1 Kings 13:4)
Jeroboam’s new altar destroyed at Bethel (1 Kings 13:4-6
31. Widow of Zarephath’s meal and oil increased (1 Kings 17:14-16)
Widow’s son raised from the dead (1 Kings 17:17-24)
Drought at Elijah’s prayers (1 Kings 17, 18)
Fire at Elijah’s prayers (1 Kings 18:19-39)
Rain at Elijah’s prayers (1 Kings 18:41-45)
Elijah fed by ravens (1 Kings 17, 18)
Ahaziah’s captains consumed by fire near Samaria (2 Kings 1:10-12)
Jordan divided by Elijah and Elisha near Jericho (2 Kings 2:7, 8, 14)
Elijah carried up into heaven (2 Kings 2:11)
Waters of Jericho healed by Elisha’s casting salt into them (2 Kings 2:21, 22)
Bears out of the wood destroy forty-two �??�??�??�?�¢??young men�??�??�??�?�¢?? (2 Kings 2:24)
Water provided for Jehoshaphat and the allied army (2 Kings 3:16-20)
The widow’s oil multiplied (2 Kings 4:2-7)
The Shunammite’s son given, and raised from the dead at Shunem (2 Kings 4:32-37)
The deadly pottage cured with meal at Gilgal (2 Kings 4:38-41)
A hundred men fed with twenty loaves at Gilgal (2 Kings 4:42-44)
Naaman cured of leprosy, Gehazi afflicted with it (2 Kings 5:10-27)
The iron axe-head made to swim, river Jordan (2 Kings 6:5-7)
Ben hadad’s plans discovered. Hazael’s thoughts, etc. (2 Kings 6:12)
The Syrian army smitten with blindness at Dothan (2 Kings 6:18)
The Syrian army cured of blindness at Samaria (2 Kings 6:20)
Elisha’s bones revive the dead (2 Kings 13:21)
Sennacherib’s army destroyed, Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:35)
Shadow of sun goes back ten degrees on the sun-dial of Ahaz, Jerusalem (2 Kings 20:9-11)
Uzziah struck with leprosy, Jerusalem (2 Chr. 26:16-21)
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego delivered from the fiery furnace, Babylon (Dan. 3:10-27)
Daniel saved in the lions’ den (Dan. 6:16-23)
Jonah in the fish’s belly. Safely landed (Jonah 2:1-10)
Gideon’s fleece (Judg. 6:37-40)
Miracles Recorded in the Gospels
Cure of two blind men (Matt 9:27-31)
Piece of money in the fish’s mouth (Matt 17:24-27)
The deaf and dumb man (Mark 7:31-37)
The blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26)
Jesus passes unseen through the crowd (Luke 4:28-30)

The miraculous draught of fishes (Luke 5:4-11)
The raising of the widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11-18)
The woman with the spirit of infirmity (Luke 13:11-17)
The man with the dropsy (Luke 14:1-6)
The ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19)
The healing of Malchus (Luke 22:50-51)

Water made wine (John 2:1-11)
Cure of nobleman’s son, Capernaum (John 4:46-54)
Impotent man at Bethsaida cured (John 5:1-9)
Man born blind cured (John 9:1-7)

Lazarus raised from the dead (John 11:38-44)
Draught of fishes (John 21:1-14)
Syrophoenician woman’s daughter cured (Matt 15:28; Mark 7:24)

Four thousand fed (Matt 15:32; Mark 8:1)
Fig tree blasted (Matt 21:18; Mark 11:12)
Centurion’s servant healed (Matt 8:5; Luke 7:1)
Blind and dumb demoniac cured (Matt 12:22; Luke 11:14)
Demoniac cured in synagogue at Capernaum (Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33)
Peter’s wife’s mother cured (Matt 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38)
The tempest stilled (Matt 8:23; Mark 4:37; Luke 8:22)
Demoniacs of Gadara cured (Matt 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26)
Swine rush into and drown (Mark 5:1-20)
Leper healed (Matt 8:2; Mark 1:40; Luke 5:12)
Jairus’s daughter raised (Matt 9:23; Mark 5:23; Luke 8:41)
Woman’s issue of blood cured (Matt 9:20; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43)
Man sick of the palsy cured (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:3; Luke 5:18)
Man’s withered hand cured (Matt 12:10; Mark 3:1; Luke 6:6)
A lunatic child cured (Matt 17:14; Mark 9:14; Luke 9:37)
Two blind men cured (Matt 20:29; Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35)
Jesus walks on the sea (Matt 14:25; Mark 6:48; John 6:15)
Jesus feeds 5,000 “in a desert place” (Matt 14:15; Mark 6:30; Luke 9:10; John 6:1-14)
Many fulfilled prophecies (also see: prophets)
The conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35)
Star of Bethlehem
The transfiguration (Matt 17:1-8)
The resurrection (John 21:1-14)
The ascension (Luke 2:42-51)
Peter and the healing of a the paralytic Aeneas at Lydda (Acts 9:32, 35, 38)
Miraculous ability to speak and/or understand a foreign language (tongue) previously unknown to the speaker (See: Gift of tongues)
Inspiration of Scripture by God
ALSO SEE:

Is it LOGICAL to believe that the biblical miracles really happened? Answer
If Christ’s miracles really happened, why weren’t they reported by historians? Answer
�??�??�??�?�¢??Miracles are not possible,�??�??�??�?�¢?? some claim. Is this true? Answer
CHRIST’S MIRACLES - Has science disproved the miracles associated with Jesus Christ? Answer
Isn’t the virgin birth of Jesus Christ mythological and scientifically impossible? Answer
Does the New Testament provide a reliable history of Christ’s life? Answer
Can we explain the �??�??�??�?�¢??long days�??�??�??�?�¢?? of Joshua and Hezekiah? Answer
INTERNAL HARMONY - A skeptic questions whether the Bible’s internal harmony is evidence of its Divine inspiration - He suggests that the existence of the James Bond film series disproves that argument. See our responseÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¦
How can I know the Bible is TRUE? Answer
GOD’S PROTECTION - What about the Psalm 91 promises? Answer
“Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¦no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tentÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¦”

[/quote]

Oh wow are you really going the bible route. Ok if you are going that route answer me this. Why is it that these “miracles” only occured during the time that the bible was written. When has anything even remotely close to something of that magnitude happened in even semi modern times? Why have no seas parted recently? Ya know I kinda think that israel is at the point in thier existance where a little devine intervention would be useful. I mean they have only had to fight about a dozen wars just to exist over the past 50 years. And you are comparing things that happened in YOUR book. What is I picked up a different religious book that stated something completely different happened around the same time and we all came to be through some other means. Let me guess, They are wrong and you are right.

259

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
If someone claims a miraculous recovery and there is not a mundane explanation and they aren’t necessarily lying then it should be taken on a case by case basis.

If someone claims a miraculous recovery that doesn’t have a mundane explanation, then their claim can be objectively confirmed and documented.

Of course, this never happens. Either people can’t back up their claims, or their “miraculous recovery” has a possible mundane explanation.

Which is why amputee restoration, or any other miracle you could think of which doesn’t have a mundane explanation, is important.[/quote]

Go look them up hoss, there’s tons. Healings, bleeding hosts, miraculous springs, etc. There is tons of miracles to look up and examine. Documented and studied. Hell, of you live in AZ you can even see the miraculous stair case of St. Joseph. You can look at it, touch it, feel it, examine it in three dimensions, walk on it, research it 'til your sick. Because you have not looked doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Believe it or not, things that you haven’t bothered with, do exist whether or not you bother with them or not.

Because we haven’t seen a documented case of limb regrowth doesn’t mean it hasn’t ever happened, and it does not nullify the validity of other miracles.

260

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
So let’s make you God for a minute, actually just a dad. Let’s say you have 4 kids, and they are all sick. Further, let’s say you have medicine and a recovery plan for each kid. Now your wife and several good friends have gotten together and ask that you help two of the kids, but say nothing of the other two. Are you just going to help the ones you were asked to help? Are you going to help all 4? Or would you get pissed off, walk out and help none?
Now, measure the effects of the asking to help only the two kids.

That is tantamount to what this “study” tried to measure. God has to do the right thing, despite what people request. Sometimes the right thing may seem unpleasant to us, but it’s the right thing nonetheless.

If that is the case, why pray at all? You’re saying that your god would do exactly the same thing regardless of whether or not you prayed to him/her/it.[/quote]

Nope, I am saying God isn’t going to favor some folks over others because some people want him to.