designing a convincing prayer experiment

My goal in this thread is to consider the Thomas problem of faith.Thomas did not, could not, believe in the risen Yeshua. So, he called for an experiment. If Yeshua would appear before him, and he could put his (Thomas') hands in His wounds, he would believe. Yeshua gave him the data asked for, and Thomas believed.Jehovah, through the prophet, Malachi, proposed another experiment, to anyone who felt the need to "prove" Him. I will state it in full here, (3:10-12)"Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, 'In what way have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you have robbed Me, even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and prove me now in this," says the Lord of host, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, so that he will not destroy the fruit of your ground, nor shall the vine fail to bear fruit for you in the field. And all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a delightful land." says the Lord of hosts. (NKJV)This is a fairly clear statement describing an experiment that will prove God, to be real, faithful to His promises, a source of life and protection. The statement itself, of course, was to the nation of Israel. But it reveals that Thomas was right in his hope that, if he needed evidence, God was willing to provide it.Today, we have several to many published scientific studies on prayer, many of which have produced statistically significant results demonstrating some sort of power to prayer. (Larry Dossey in his book 'Healing Hands' summarizes the older data.) In most cases, those praying were assuming that God was answering these prayers partly to allow Himself to be proved. Many theologians have challenged that assumption, and the application of the results to a Thomas-like increase in faith through some sort of tangible experience. But, it seems reasonable.Our task is to see if we can design an experiment that, if the God Jehovah is out there, will let Him prove Himself. A literalist might want to insist on a tithing experiment, with predetermined and well-defined outcomes, that will constitute an objective test. Others may want to set up prayer experiments, that test the effects of different ways of praying. The idea would be to think up different prayers that would separate out the various alternative gods, or hypotheses, that might explain why prayer studies seem to often work. We might think about praying for irrelevant things, such as the sprouting rates of seedling, or for important things, such as the elimination or reduction of violence in the middle east.Now, this will work best if some of the persons participating in the discussion and the experiments have some faith to begin with. We would also need some real skeptics. Who knows, perhaps God will bend over backwards to show a skeptic a thing or two.The guy who started all this, Frank Loehr, did kitchen table experiments with seedling sprouting and growth rates. (The power of prayer on plants). I've done experiments of this sort with skeptics, where they did all the work, and I did all the praying, with interesting results.Anyone interested?Stephen

"The guy who started all this, Frank Loehr, did kitchen table experiments with seedling sprouting and growth rates. (The power of prayer on plants). I've done experiments of this sort with skeptics, where they did all the work, and I did all the praying, with interesting results." [RaSBey, Post #1]Did the "kitchen table experiments" happen to include exhaling hot, moist breath over the "prayed on" seedlings, thereby contributing a more warm, humid atmosphere for one set of plants than the other set of plants that did not benefit from the growth-stimulating hot air prayers?Oh, and did that hot air happen to contain any extra nutrients like, say brewer's yeast? If so, I can see why praying directly over seedlings would induce accelerated growth rates.Peace.

Abshalom, No, Loehr was a scientist, and all his experiments were double-blinded. If we replicate his projects, we will each need several helpers.Stephen

Stephen: Greetings. You said in your opening statement that "Now, this will work best if some of the persons participating in the discussion and the experiments have some faith to begin with. We would also need some real skeptics. Who knows, perhaps God will bend over backwards to show a skeptic a thing or two." This reminded me of the following scriptures:Matt 16:2-4 Notice how Jesus says that a generation that seeks a sign is a wicked one. Is He implying that any skeptic is wicked? No because a skeptic is not a believer. Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days. Jesus was dead for three days before He rose. Perhaps in Christian terminology, prayer is not prayer without a belief in a source to pray to. For the skeptics, how can they pray if they already doubt the source? Or are you suggesting that they pray like this:
God, I doubt that You are a reality, and I have yet to see You manifest in any way that I can see. I am gonna give this experiment a fair shake, however, so If You are real, move the table one inch.
Amen. Heck, if You are real, prove it to me! I dare ya!

phatboy,Greetings in return. You note and ask, Well, my first prayer was hypothetical. "God, if you are out there, please let me know somehow, so I can deal with you however I must, in order to live." And God responded. But, I had a lot of people praying for me, asking God to choose me for His kingdom. And, I was a "my word is my bond" sort of person, and deep down inside dreaded finding out that God was real, because I knew that I would have to make a lot of changes in my life if He revealed Himself. Anyway, He responded, revealed Himself, and set me on the path of making the dramatic changes I feared. Gently, I might add. A lot more patiently than I anticipated.Death and life, so it is written, are in the power of the tongue. I would very much like to see what would happen to a skeptic prayer experiment including and excluding a testimony that "I choose life."Move the table one inch? That's probably praying amiss, looking for a sign as an evil generation. But praying for thriving sprouts, that you intend to eat for good health....just good sense. Unless you intend to use your good health to do evil, or something selfish.I am watching the drought in Kansas break down the state economy and the ability to fund education. That drought began a few days after Kansans voted out the school board that wanted to de-emphasize evolutionary teaching in the schools. People are praying here and there against the drought, with some, but spotty success. Are their prayers unsuccessful because the prosperity rain brings would be used to further provide a stumbling block to the faith of their children? When I ask God what's up, that's what He tells me. What are you hearing?Hope we get some ideas and projects started.Stephen

I have a little problem with this one. Why would God answer a prayer to make a plant grow faster for the sole purpose of proving that praying to him can make a plant grow faster? I can see why he might answer such a prayer when the object of the exercise is to get enough food to keep a family from starvation, but not for a daft reason like this.God can choose whether to answer a prayer or not, so if it doesn't work what conclusions can you draw?
1. Prayer doesn't work because there is no God
2. God chose not to answer this particular prayerSo a negative result means that God either does or does not exist. Seems to me we're no further forward than we were at the start. If it works and the prayed-over plants grow faster is it because of the increased carbon dioxide breathed over them? How on earth are you going to control this experiment? You'll need to separate your plants because you also have the possibility that talking softly to plants makes them grow faster and being nasty to them or ignoring them makes them grow more slowly. Once they're separated how do you know that they are subjected to identical growing conditions eg amount of light, temperature, water, the starting condition of the seed, presence of plant pathogens.....the list is endless. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but the difficulties mean that you have to have access to specialised equipment to be sure that prayer and only prayer is the only variable in the experiment.Also, isn't there a quote from Jesus during his 40 days in the wilderness when Satan tempted him to jump off a pinnacle and the reply was along the lines of "Do not put the Lord your God to the test"? Just a small point.

Trixie:We also must take into consideration that the person proposing this "double blind" experiment is the same individual that supposes both inanimate and animate entities to be inhabited by or play host to demons and evil angels.So, could it be that praying over one control group of plants causes the Devil to direct his minions to enter the physical structure of the control grouup plants and inhibit their growth, say for the purpose of misguiding the Obedient Scientist into false beliefs?I'll bet RaSBey has an answer that will safeguard the integrity of the experiment. Afterall, the Devil's in the details.Peace.

Hi Stephen,Thank you for yet another demonstration of your lack of scientific background: A double-blind test means that neither the experimenters nor the subjects know whether they're in the experimental group or the control group. In other words, a double-blind test only applies when sentient beings with awareness, like people, are involved, in order to protect against the placebo effect.Since Loehr's experimental subjects were plants, not people, and since plants aren't normally considered sentient, the experiment could only be single blind, where Loehr didn't know which plants he was praying for. Maintaining your history of inconsistency, you also change your story. In your opening post you say that Loehr did "kitchen table experiments". But as soon as someone inquires, suddenly these "kitchen table experiments" become scientifically rigorous "double-blind" experiments. Clearly you are once again making it up as you go along.--Percy

Now, Percy! You have demonstrated to me why it is so hard for some people to even have faith.
1) Some of us use Faith as our bedrock. Our prerequisite. Then we examine the facts and theories. Yes, we are not scientists..we are theologians.
2) The scientific minded among you need facts as your bedrock. Faith will not even start in you without facts. Us Faithmongers pray that God will smite you with a small stick to awaken your faith. You and your scientific friends wish that we were not so blind to the facts which keep us from advancing intellectually so as not to have to rely on myths to sustain our hope in humanity. Just because a belief is unsupported by facts does not make it a myth. I will try and trust facts a bit more, but I ask you to step out on a limb of faith beyond the obvious...both of us may grow like those little seedlings!

Faith and science are two different realms. Science tells me how to land on Mars, faith how to land in heaven. Stephen is arguing that faith is science and that his faith can tell him how to land on both Mars and heaven. This is patently ridiculous.Your viewpoint is at odd with Stephen's, not mine. The enemy of evolution is not necessarily the friend of faith, and Stephen provides an excellent example by putting God to the test through scientific experimentation. This is aside from the fact that Stephen seems to bollix every attempt at seeming scientific, which was really my only point in the message you replied to.--Percy

OK...Gotcha, Percy. I see what you are saying.

I'm a scientist and I have faith in God WITHOUT facts!! I don't need those facts. If I had them it would no longer be faith!!! That's why faith is so difficult. I find it easy to believe in evolution because the facts to date support that theory and nothing I have seen goes against that theory. Faith in God isn't easy - it's not supposed to be. You have to stand firm in the face of a total lack of evidence. No-one will ever prove the existence of God, that doesn't mean He isn't there and if anyone needs the existence of God proved to continue in their "faith" then it isn't faith.

IF THE LORD PICK YOU TO TELL OF HIS DESIGN. HYPOTHETICAL THAT IS.KNOWING WHAT THEY DID TO HIS SON.HYPOTHETICAL AGIAN .CAN YOU SEE YOUR SELF IN HER OR HIS SHOES.THE CHURCH IS NOT WITH US IN REVELLATION.HYPOTHETICAL YOURS GOOD LUCK.T1Tall

Hi, Manfree!Is there any personal condition or situation or state of your computer equipment I should know about that would justify typing cryptic messages in all caps with incorrect grammar, punctuation and spelling? While we have many members that exhibit one mix or another of these symptoms, you're the first to combine them all and it's a bit hard to take. You can reply to Admin instead of posting if you like.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

liv&learnfaithandbellief SEE REPLY I DO NOT TAKE IT PERSONAL