designing a convincing prayer experiment

Percy, So, we throw out Benzene rings? Wavy light particles? C'mon Percy, this in nonsense. Back in the early seventies, when we were watching the philosophers of science deal with this, Polanyi, Lakatose, Popper, others, we saw certain "puritanical" scientists deal with subjective speculation ("For shame, you dirty little boy!") the way many parts of our culture were responding to sex. But we were discovering that we could safely have a lot of fun, and still raise healthy vibrant children. Still have a lot of fun, and still make really useful discoveries. The prediction making and testing process cleans up all the "dangers" of subjective (personal knowledge of Polanyi) speculation. So, lighten up. It is science, and it generates the best science. Do the google. See for yourself.Stephen

P. It was the critical step in the discovery of benzene rings, which had been an insoluble problem, before the dream. I suspect from Jehovah, but dreams, intuitive hunches, exciting ideas remain something of a mystery. But, we need them. Who was it who sat around without sleep for days, with ball-bearings in his hands over tin pie plates? When he'd fall asleep, the balls would drop and clang and wake him up. Because he got a lot of appealing ideas when waking up. Very subjective though. Most didn't work out, but were improved by the effort.By the way, you apparently subscribe to a scientific method which does not allow anything from the Bible to be used in forming hypotheses or gathering data (?). I don't. Neither did Witztum. Or those getting prayers for fertility, I wager. Evidence for demons, in my view. Read anything for science but History's most popular, influential book? Where did that idea come from?S.

MrHambre,Malachi 3:10-12 describes the falsification test.Stephen

PAulk, Didn't the data indicate that they had high fertility with or without prayer? It is interesting that, perhaps, there are factors creating infertility that vary with age, and with vulnerability to prayer. That older women get infertile for spiritual reasons, young women due to diet, say. Lots of research to do.Stephen

P.Reading the Hypo-Ded pages on Google impressed me with the number of observational sciences wanting to use the method. Sciences where predictions about unknown patterns in nature could be predicted and looked for, to validate theories to some degree. That's how I made my name in ecology, not doing experiments. Besides, I have out testing prayer experiments, personally, for 25 years. Give me a break!S.

P. I'm helping others walk the trail that has got me in such (interesting) trouble. And, every post, every reply, I learn something.

Abshalom,You wonder, Well, you don't have to watch. The problem is, these sorts of things are predicted from Orthodox Theology, and failure for them to occur refutes the idea that there are demons. That is, if I meddle with Satan's stuff (most of you, by OT), I must "fill up what is lacking in the suffering of Yeshua." "Be persecuted for righteousness sake." etc. It's a disciple's job to suffer with his master. It's how you get treasure in heaven, "like the prophets who went before you."Of course, I'm supposed to be leaping for joy in the midst of it all, usually the case. "Sacrifice of praise." The "for" in leaping for joy, means "to get." not "because of." How do I effectively communicate that to you?But, I am having fun! Sparring intellectually is great training. I get to read the passages in John where Yeshua argues with the Pharisees, and say to my Lord, "Yeah, that's how they attacked me, too! They never change, do they!"I appreciate, by the way, you get the twinkle in your eye across in these posts. Pray I can do that!Stephen

P.We are actually in agreement in principle, just mis-understanding one another. We agree that subjective stuff is never evidence for a theory. We agree that it may help us interpret objective data that can be evidence for a theory. I thought that that's what I've been saying all along. It certainly is what I wanted to communicate. Maybe demons have been confusing the transmission.Of course the Bible is falsifiable. It says so about itself, Malachi 3:8-12. And actually, in lots of other places, where it says that if you seek the Lord with all your might, you will find Him. Unless you are looking for Him to try to kill Him or put Him down. Not that studies trying to falsify the Bible will be any less controversial than other studies, or take less long to be integrated into the ongoing paradigms.That's why I'm more interested in methodology and outside referees to debates. People who are not willing to submit to data ("Well, that data is flawed." or referees "He's blind!") just don't get to play the game. They are disqualified on technical fouls.Stephen

Dblevins,An excellent correction, which I fully acknowledge. Change "insoluable" to "intractable." In any case, the dream helped Kekule form an hypothesis that the data fully supported.You also ask, None that I can see. I do like, "Goddidit, and I'm impressed. Now, God, how did you do that?" He has never answered me directly on that, taking the question much like my Dad did when I would ask him where he hid the easter eggs. He taught me how to search, and let me know he was having a good time watching me figure it all out. Trying to read his mind.Stephen

Evolutioner,You ask, Here is how I do it. First, I set out my choices. In the present forum, it is to be a creationist, an evolutionist, or a truthist. Associated with each choice are a set of rules that one must abide by. It's like choosing to play bridge or poker. Both creationists and evolutionist play a game with the rule that any data that contradict their point of view must be explained away. Philosophically, this is always possible, so the game can be played. The goal of the game is to cleverly preserve contemporary paradigms.Truthists play by a set or rules that allow, and ultimately force, a change of paradigm. Their rules, including protocols called the scientific method, force them to continually look for and set up experiments or observations that produce data which, if found, force a revision of their thinking, or beliefs. Another rule with truthists is, "anything is possible, and nothing is certain." So, be ready to believe any idea that comes up, or not believe in any idea that is currently popular. They see the point in love believes all things.So, you see, I can choose to believe in evolution, in which case I develope my skills at ad hoc dismissals of data that supports the idea that a Creator created everything (Bible Code data, prayer studies, and so on).Or, I can choose to believe in creation, and work at finding flaws in evolutionary arguments and data and workers.Or, I can choose to believe in truth, and work at finding ideas that successfully predict the outcome of experiments and studies. In this latter case, I may end up believing in either evolution or creation or, as is usually the case, some mix of the two. Since love believes all things, I cannot be a truthist if I choose to not believe in anything.Practically, we "talk ourselves into" whatever choice we make. The psychologists helping people change have found that the tongue tells the brain how to function or be, more than the brain tells the tongue what to say. You will find that saying out loud, "I choose...." where you insert what you do choose amoung the choices set before you, has incredible power in making your mind change. "I choose life." is a good beginning, if you can separate the meaning from the anti-abortion agenda. An awful lot of people are self-destructive, choosing death, and a belief system that they know will kill them, or at least take them out of the life-game. Nobody chooses to be a truthist unless they want to live abundantly and free, because that's what the truth gets you.Stephen

L.You comment, The set of "all those who desire to walk righteously in Christ Yeshua" is entirely within the set of those who are persecuted, but the set of the persecuted contains others as well. To be declared righteous you have to "know God" (i.e. hear His voice) and keep His commandments.Evo's suffer at the hands of creo's, and vice versa, because Jehovah chooses to see His enemies fighting and gnawing at each other.S.

P.You curiously say, again, ignoring my repeated statements that prayer studies that use anti-demonic prayers, such as are prayed by Christians praying the Lord's prayer, as well as Bible Code studies, Theomatics, and studies by those testing the orthodox theology hypothesis on NDEs, all confirm the idea that demons exist, because the existence of demons is a major part of the OT hypothesis. Because of this confirmation, they are evidence for the existence of demons, and make that idea more plausible.All of which confirms one of Yeshua's predictions about certain people, that "hearing, they do not hear, and seeing, they do not see." Frankly, your responses to me, as a fellow member of the species Homo sapiens, are remarkable evidence that demons exist. It is most implausible that I could put something before any simply natural human's eyes so many times and yet they persist in denying that it is there. Unless some mental pathogen simply erases it, snatches it away, before they, you, can let it register.A true scientist would do the experiment I suggested, to replicate the prayer studies, praying agnostically, experimentally, for Jehovah to get the devil out of the picture, to see if they could actually hang on to the ideas being set before them.As to the falsification of the Bible, it declares of itself that the "tests" you refer to prove nothing. An alternative hypothesis about the Bible, that it is literally true in every statement has been disproven, but the Bible declares of itself that that is not true. "It's the glory of God to conceal a matter." Prophecy is "dark sayings." As written, every test of the scriptures that I know of have been confirmed when tested.Note that, if a thief comes into your house, and asks you if you have any gold stashed anywhere, you are apt to lie and say no, with a completely clear conscience. Since everyone who does not tithe is, according to God, a thief, He has no responsibility to tell or reveal the truth to them. Hence, He insists that your first effort to experimentally confirm Him and His scriptures begins with this experiment. Saves Him the trouble of having to deal with those who don't really want to know.S.

Evolutioner,You say, But other people's minds tell them it must be true. So, you have to choose whose mind to believe. Even more, it is widely believed that there is a Person, Jehovah, with a mind that is never wrong, unlike the human minds all around or in us. Jehovah's mind, according to scripture, a widely and wildly popular reference, is available to anyone who wants to seek Him out and ask Him anything. So, there's an even more interesting, potentially useful, choice. Seek out Jehovah, get His mind, and believe that over what your own mind says.My choice to be a truthist was a choice to change my own mind as much as possible. First, chose life. Then truth. Then love.So, when you ask, The answer is yes. I once let "cupid" control my love-life, but learned that I could control my feelings completely by making certain choices. I don't say, "I love God." though, because too often, that's not true. I say, "I choose to love God. Therefore, I ask God, or any greater power actually, that is all about love and truth, to give me what I choose, to make me love Him/You." When I am agnostic, often my condition, that's all I can do, until the prayer is answered.This also works very well for loving people. My first marriage was ending is a loveless condition, when I was advised that love by choice could be restored. I followed the, for me agnostic, prayer instructions, got cupid out of the picture (he was making me love worthless women), and watched in amazement as I "fell" back in love with my wife, and her with me. Got another 7 good years out of that marriage! As much as could be gotten, given the choices my wife was making.There's a book out, called "Love is a choice." Profitable reading. Making choices, exercising the will until it is strong, learning how to use the theories of evolution and creation, to take baby steps to create whatever beliefs, love, feelings, powers you might choose to have, ah now, that's abundant life!Stephen

Hey, Percy,This is a good post, which somehow got under my radar. Let me think on it, and get a thorough reply back to you!Stephen

Percy,Thanks! I thought it looked familiar, but I thought I was just reacting to your style.Stephen