No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[DrFever]

Like the saying goes belief is in the eye if the beholder,, if anyone thinks that there was a Jesus or there is a God better dam well have proof there is

When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Like a steamroller. Why the Sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being. I could go on and on.

All these things were once explained by religion. But as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the explanations based on religion were replaced by ones based on physical cause and effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like a steamroller. The number of times that a supernatural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural one? The number of times humankind has said, "We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it's caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul"?

Exactly zero.

Sure, people come up with new supernatural "explanations" for stuff all the time. But explanations with evidence? Replicable evidence? Carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence? Internally consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources? Again -- exactly zero.

Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don't have a thorough explanation -- human consciousness, for instance, or the origin of the Universe -- will be best explained by the supernatural?

Given this pattern, it's clear that the chances of this are essentially zero. So close to zero that they might as well be zero. And the hypothesis of the supernatural is therefore a hypothesis we can discard. It is a hypothesis we came up with when we didn't understand the world as well as we do now... but that, on more careful examination, has never once been shown to be correct.

If I see any solid evidence to support God, or any supernatural explanation of any phenomenon, I'll reconsider my disbelief. Until then, I'll assume that the mind-bogglingly consistent pattern of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones is almost certain to continue.

(Oh -- for the sake of brevity, I'm generally going to say "God" in this chapter when I mean "God, or the soul, or metaphysical energy, or any sort of supernatural being or substance." I don't feel like getting into discussions about, "Well, I don't believe in an old man in the clouds with a white beard, but I believe..." It's not just the man in the white beard that I don't believe in. I don't believe in any sort of religion, any sort of soul or spirit or metaphysical guiding force, anything that isn't the physical world and its vast and astonishing manifestations.

 

[DrFever]

If God (or any other metaphysical being or beings) were real, and people were really perceiving him/ her/ it/ them, why do these perceptions differ so wildly?


When different people look at, say, a tree, we more or less agree about what we're looking at: what size it is, what shape, whether it currently has leaves or not and what color those leaves are, etc. We may have disagreements regarding the tree -- what other plants it's most closely related to, where it stands in the evolutionary scheme, should it be cut down to make way for a new sports stadium, etc. But unless one of us is hallucinating or deranged or literally unable to see, we can all agree on the tree's basic existence, and the basic facts about it.

This is blatantly not the case for God. Even among people who do believe in God, there is no agreement about what God is, what God does, what God wants from us, how he acts or doesn't act on the world, whether he's a he, whether there's one or more of him, whether he's a personal being or a diffuse metaphysical substance. And this is among smart, thoughtful people. What's more, many smart, thoughtful people don't even think God exists.

And if God existed, he'd be a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more powerful, with a whole lot more effect in the world, than a tree. Why is it that we can all see a tree in more or less the same way, but we don't see God in even remotely the same way?

The explanation, of course, is that God does not exist. We disagree so radically over what he is because we aren't perceiving anything that's real. We're "perceiving" something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brain that's wired to see pattern and intention, even when none exists, is inclined to see and believe.

 

[DrFever]

I have seen a lot of arguments for the existence of God. And they all boil down to one or more of the following: The argument from authority. (Example: "God exists because the Bible says God exists.") The argument from personal experience. (Example: "God exists because I feel in my heart that God exists.") The argument that religion shouldn't have to logically defend its claims. (Example: "God is an entity that cannot be proven by reason or evidence.") Or the redefining of God into an abstract principle... so abstract that it can't be argued against, but also so abstract that it scarcely deserves the name God. (Example: "God is love.")

And all these arguments are ridiculously weak.

Sacred books and authorities can be mistaken. I have yet to see a sacred book that doesn't have any mistakes. (The Bible, to give just one example, is shot full of them.) And the feelings in people's hearts can definitely be mistaken. They are mistaken, demonstrably so, much of the time. Instinct and intuition play an important part in human understanding and experience... but they should never be treated as the final word on a subject. I mean, if I told you, "The tree in front of my house is 500 feet tall with hot pink leaves," and I offered as a defense, "I know this is true because my mother/ preacher/ sacred book tells me so"... or "I know this is true because I feel it in my heart"... would you take me seriously?

Some people do try to prove God's existence by pointing to evidence in the world. But that evidence is inevitably terrible. Pointing to the perfection of the Bible as a historical and prophetic document, for instance... when it so blatantly is nothing of the kind. Or pointing to the fine-tuning of the Universe for life... even though this supposedly perfect fine-tuning is actually pretty crappy, and the conditions that allow for life on Earth have only existed for the tiniest fragment of the Universe's existence and are going to be boiled away by the Sun in about a billion years. Or pointing to the complexity of life and the world and insisting that it must have been designed... when the sciences of biology and geology and such have provided far, far better explanations for what seems, at first glance, like design.

As to the argument that "We don't have to show you any reason or evidence, it's unreasonable and intolerant for you to even expect that"... that's conceding the game before you've even begun. It's like saying, "I know I can't make my case -- therefore I'm going to concentrate my arguments on why I don't have to make my case in the first place." It's like a defense lawyer who knows their client is guilty, so they try to get the case thrown out on a technicality.

Ditto with the "redefining God out of existence" argument. If what you believe in isn't a supernatural being or substance that has, or at one time had, some sort of effect on the world... well, your philosophy might be an interesting one, but it is not, by any useful definition of the word, religion.


Again: If I tried to argue, "The tree in front of my house is 500 feet tall with hot pink leaves -- and the height and color of trees is a question that is best answered with personal faith and feeling, not with reason or evidence"... or, "I know this is true because I am defining '500 feet tall and hot pink' as the essential nature of tree-ness, regardless of its outward appearance"... would you take me seriously?

 

[DrFever]

Over the years and decades and centuries, our understanding of the physical world has grown and clarified by a ridiculous amount. We understand things about the Universe that we couldn't have imagined a thousand years ago, or a hundred, or even ten. Things that make your mouth gape with astonishment just to think about.

And the reason for this is that we came up with an incredibly good method for sorting out good ideas from bad ones. We came up with the scientific method, a self-correcting method for understanding the physical world: a method which -- over time, and with the many fits and starts that accompany any human endeavor -- has done an astonishingly good job of helping us perceive and understand the world, predict it and shape it, in ways we couldn't have imagined in decades and centuries past. And the scientific method itself is self-correcting. Not only has our understanding of the natural world improved dramatically: our method for understanding it is improving as well.

Our understanding of the supernatural world? Not so much.

Our understanding of the supernatural world is in the same place it's always been: hundreds and indeed thousands of sects, squabbling over which sacred texts and spiritual intuitions are the right ones. We haven't come to any consensus about which religion best understands the supernatural world. We haven't even come up with a method for making that decision. All anyone can do is point to their own sacred text and their own spiritual intuition. And around in the squabbling circle we go.

All of which points to religion, not as a perception of a real being or substance, but as an idea we made up and are clinging to. If religion were a perception of a real being or substance, our understanding of it would be sharpening, clarifying, being refined. We'd have better prayer techniques, more accurate prophecies, something. Anything but people squabbling with greater or lesser degrees of rancor, and nothing to back up their belief.

 

[DrFever]

This is probably the best argument I have against God's existence: There's no evidence for it. No good evidence, anyway. No evidence that doesn't just amount to opinion and tradition and confirmation bias and all the other stuff I've been talking about. No evidence that doesn't fall apart upon close examination.

And in a perfect world, that should have been the only argument I needed. In a perfect world, I shouldn't have had to spend a month and a half collating and summarizing the reasons I don't believe in God, any more than I would have for Zeus or Quetzalcoatl or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As thousands of atheists before me have pointed out: It is not up to us to prove that God does not exist. It is up to theists to prove that he does.
Why, indeed?

If there's an argument for religion that's convincing -- actually convincing, convincing by means of something other than authority, tradition, personal intuition, confirmation bias, fear and intimidation, wishful thinking, or some combination of the above -- wouldn't we all know about it?

Wouldn't it have spread like wildfire? Wouldn't it be the Meme of All Memes? I mean, we all saw that Simon's Cat video within about two weeks of it hitting the Internet. Don't you think that the Truly Excellent Argument for God's Existence would have spread even faster, and wider, than some silly cartoon cat video?

If the arguments for religion are so wonderful, why are they so unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already believe?

And why does God need arguments, anyway? Why does God need people to make his arguments for him? Why can't he just reveal his true self, clearly and unequivocally, and settle the question once and for all? If God existed, why wouldn't it just be obvious?

It is not up to atheists to prove that God does not exist. It is up to believers to prove that he does. And in the absence of any good, solid evidence or arguments in favor of God's existence -- and in the presence of a whole lot of solid arguments against it -- I will continue to be an atheist. God certainly does not exist, and it's completely reasonable to act as if he doesn't.

 

[Weird]

The arguments are weak because of your perception.

As in the example with Santa Clause, belief and participation in the fable, rises to understanding the spirit of giving and the benefit of selfless giving.

Taking a belief to fanatical levels is nonsensical, regardless of that belief, science, atheist, religious or otherwise.

Science can't measure the molecular interactions of karma so they don't examine the existence of it, but we can observe it. Thus the benefit of philosophy and religion to help us see the invisible characters of human nature relative to itself and the universe around it.

As far as the least bit, if you cannot substantiate your belief into absolute and conclusive science, it is nothing more than belief, if your belief is based on opposing the mainstream belief it is not problem solution based but emotion based, it opposes the mainstream without an intelligent purpose.

If "atheists" think religion is to blame actualize it and solve the problem and offer the solution to the intellectually inferior masses.

In reality all atheists who oppose religion because of its "negative" effect on mankind are really humanists because the catalyst for the opposition is their perception that humanity is being compromised.

Their beef isn't with God but the manifestation of God through human behaviors or the manipulation of behaviors based on the word of God.

If the latter is true and the word is effective in corrupting mankind, does this not actualize the power of God in the first place?

But I digress, if religion offends you because of what it does to humanity what do you do to tip the scales?

Pointing out the problem doesn't solve it, it doesn't actualize it, it offers no benefit.

Pointing out a problem you can't actualize makes you delusional.

 

[DrFever]

Not all religious and spiritual beliefs make testable claims. But some of them do. And in the face of actual testing, every one of those claims falls apart like Kleenex in a hurricane.

Whether it's the power of prayer, or faith healing, or astrology, or life after death: the same pattern is seen. Whenever religious and supernatural beliefs have made testable claims, and those claims have been tested -- not half-assedly tested, but really tested, using careful, rigorous, double-blind, placebo-controlled, replicated, etc. etc. etc. testing methods -- the claims have consistently fallen apart. Occasionally a scientific study has appeared that claimed to support something supernatural... but more thorough studies have always refuted them. Every time.

I'm not going to cite each one of these tests, or even most of them. This chapter is already long as it is. Instead, I'll encourage you to spend a little time on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer websites. You'll see a pattern so consistent it boggles the mind: Claimants insist that Supernatural Claim X is real. Supernatural Claim X is subjected to careful testing, applying the standard scientific methods used in research to screen out bias and fraud. Supernatural Claim X is found to hold about as much water as a sieve. (And claimants, having agreed beforehand that the testing method is valid, afterwards insist that it wasn't fair.)

And don't say, "Oh, the testers were biased." That's the great thing about the scientific method. It's designed to screen out bias, as much as is humanly possible. When done right, it will give you the right answer, regardless of the bias of the people doing the testing.

And I want to repeat an important point about the supposed anti-religion bias in science. In the early days of science and the scientific method, most scientists did believe in God, and the soul, and the metaphysical. In fact, many early science experiments were attempts to prove the existence of these things, and discover their true natures, and resolve the squabbles about them once and for all. It was only after decades of these experiments failing to turn up anything at all that the scientific community began -- gradually, and very reluctantly -- to give up on the idea.

Supernatural claims only hold up under careless, casual examination. They are supported by wishful thinking, and confirmation bias (i.e., our tendency to overemphasize evidence that supports what we believe and to discard evidence that contradicts it), and our poor understanding and instincts when it comes to probability, and our tendency to see pattern and intention even when none exists, and a dozen other forms of cognitive bias and weird human brain wiring. When studied carefully, under conditions specifically designed to screen these things out, the claims vanish like the insubstantial imaginings they are.

 

[DrFever]

Weird what does Karma have to do with it ??? sweet nothing really

The sciences of neurology and neuropsychology are in their infancy. But they are advancing by astonishing leaps and bounds, even as we speak. And what they are finding -- consistently, thoroughly, across the board -- is that, whatever consciousness is, it is inextricably linked to the brain.

Everything we think of as the soul -- consciousness, identity, character, free will -- all of that is powerfully affected by physical changes to the brain and body. Changes in the brain result in changes in consciousness... sometimes so drastically, they make a personality unrecognizable. Changes in consciousness can be seen, with magnetic resonance imagery, as changes in the brain. Illness, injury, drugs and medicines, sleep deprivation, etc.... all of these can make changes to the supposed "soul," both subtle and dramatic. And death, of course, is a physical change that renders a person's personality and character, not only unrecognizable, but non-existent.

So the obvious conclusion is that consciousness and identity, character and free will, are products of the brain and the body. They're biological processes, governed by laws of physical cause and effect. With any other phenomenon, if we can show that physical forces and actions produce observable effects, we think of that as a physical phenomenon. Why should the "soul" be any different?

What's more, the evidence supporting this conclusion comes from rigorously-gathered, carefully-tested, thoroughly cross-checked, double-blinded, placebo- controlled, replicated, peer-reviewed research. The evidence has been gathered, and continues to be gathered, using the gold standard of scientific evidence: methods specifically designed to filter out biases and cognitive errors as much as humanly possible. And it's not just a little research. It's an enormous mountain of research... a mountain that's growing more mountainous every day.

The hypothesis of the soul, on the other hand, has not once in all of human history been supported by good, solid scientific evidence. That's pretty surprising when you think about it. For decades, and indeed centuries, most scientists had some sort of religious beliefs, and most of them believed in the soul. So a great deal of early science was dedicated to proving the soul's existence, and discovering and exploring its nature. It wasn't until after decades upon decades of fruitless research in this area that scientists finally gave it up as a bad job, and concluded, almost unanimously, that the reason they hadn't found a soul was that there was no such thing.

Are there unanswered questions about consciousness? Absolutely. Tons of them. No reputable neurologist or neuropsychologist would say otherwise. But think again about how the history of human knowledge is the history of supernatural explanations being replaced by natural ones... with relentless consistency, again, and again, and again. There hasn't been a single exception to this pattern. Why would we assume that the soul is going to be that exception? Why would we assume that this gap in our knowledge, alone among all the others, is eventually going to be filled with a supernatural explanation? The historical pattern doesn't support it. And the evidence doesn't support it. The increasingly clear conclusion of the science is that consciousness is a product of the brain. Period.

 

[trichrider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlmrHMBW36w

where science and Buddhism meet. parts one and two.
fascinating...and relevant to your argument.

 

[waveguide]

waveguide, with all due respect, that's just nonsensical paranoia you are expressing.

you said you are a programmer, right? so lets say someone picks up a book on how to write in some form of C language, but said person finds that learning C language to program is too "cryptically academic and pompous" LOL!!!! maybe the problem is not the C language but the individual unwilling to study a bit? afraid his brain will die of exhaustion?

or someone who wants to play violin at a philharmonic, but is unwilling to learn how to read musical notation because, apparently, "the evil masons came up with such a complicated way to write music that all men cannot have egalitarian access to read Stravinsky and play it on a Stradivarius" LOL!!!

Dialectics is a necessary function of language when concepts such a Epistemology or Hermeneutics are to be discussed, just like the language of Algebra if you want to get good in Geometry, etc...

such is life, you need to acquire skills to tackle problems, and if you think the skills were "designed" by someone with the intention to make it harder for the "common man" by some "elite" that despises "egalitarianism", then you have some real issues with paranoia and you need to get over those issues soon.

peace

you picked a fantastic example!

ever read "programming windows" by charles petzold? the microsoft text for the windows sdk?

obviously not or you definately wouldn't have picked programming as your example.. it is obfuscated to an extent you would have to attempt to implement to appreciate..

eg., there is a chapter on handling the mouse, i think it's chapter 9 from memory.. maybe 8...

...you might think such a critical thing would be presented sooner in the text..

..you'd be wrong! in fact, that chapter *does not even relate how to handle mouse clicks* because this is incidentally presented during an earlier chapter. yet, there is no reference. suppose you wanted to add mouse click handling to an existing program. you cannot pick up the text and find the information unless you have about 600 pages (that's about where chapter 8 or 9 is) fresh in your memory.


if you do not think that there are covert influences in culture and industry, you are sucking a penis my friend, because phil spector. because the music industry. because the lyrics to american pie. because kanye west or jay-z or joni mitchell or who else has been mentioned on icmag in the last few days...

but i'd expect that kind of expression from you


please, be respectful, mister moderator. i have experienced years of actual torture, places you don't want to go, because of covert masonic harassment in coordination with their allies, i guess. you can read examples of this from james walbert, who has been involuntarily implanted, is gang stalked, electroshocked, shit you just don't want people to know about, but it's all in u.s. court records.

it would be disrespectful for me to present my unique credentials and testimony on this topic on this forum and reveal my identity, but you can go to youtube and watch the bioethics commission testimonies from the other people who have been routinely implanted, harassed and tortured. look up mkultra trial testimony on youtube and look at the faces of women who have been raped when they were girls by the u.s. government, and won that court case,

and you can tell them they are paranoid, huh.

Thank. You.

 

[waveguide]

i hope you realise, it's easy for me to tell who you are, by the things you say. and i still don't mind talking, in public.

but don't talk stupid to me.

 

[ghostmade]

The matrix is real,god is the architect . The end

 

[mr.brunch]

 

[bombadil.360]

you picked a fantastic example!

ever read "programming windows" by charles petzold? the microsoft text for the windows sdk?

obviously not or you definately wouldn't have picked programming as your example.. it is obfuscated to an extent you would have to attempt to implement to appreciate..

eg., there is a chapter on handling the mouse, i think it's chapter 9 from memory.. maybe 8...

...you might think such a critical thing would be presented sooner in the text..

..you'd be wrong! in fact, that chapter *does not even relate how to handle mouse clicks* because this is incidentally presented during an earlier chapter. yet, there is no reference. suppose you wanted to add mouse click handling to an existing program. you cannot pick up the text and find the information unless you have about 600 pages (that's about where chapter 8 or 9 is) fresh in your memory.


if you do not think that there are covert influences in culture and industry, you are sucking a penis my friend, because phil spector. because the music industry. because the lyrics to american pie. because kanye west or jay-z or joni mitchell or who else has been mentioned on icmag in the last few days...

but i'd expect that kind of expression from you


please, be respectful, mister moderator. i have experienced years of actual torture, places you don't want to go, because of covert masonic harassment in coordination with their allies, i guess. you can read examples of this from james walbert, who has been involuntarily implanted, is gang stalked, electroshocked, shit you just don't want people to know about, but it's all in u.s. court records.

it would be disrespectful for me to present my unique credentials and testimony on this topic on this forum and reveal my identity, but you can go to youtube and watch the bioethics commission testimonies from the other people who have been routinely implanted, harassed and tortured. look up mkultra trial testimony on youtube and look at the faces of women who have been raped when they were girls by the u.s. government, and won that court case,

and you can tell them they are paranoid, huh.

Thank. You.

So a badly written and organized textbook on programming is your evidence of purposeful obfuscation in the subject of computer programming? really? ever tried reading Plato in its original Greek? hehehe...

i hope you realise, it's easy for me to tell who you are, by the things you say. and i still don't mind talking, in public.

but don't talk stupid to me.

pray tell, who am I? a masonic agent getting paid hundred thousands of dollars a month to post on icmag and psychologically stalk waveguide?

I'm sure you don't really believe that, do you?

if so, you can always put me on ignore my friend and problem solved.

we'll have to agree to disagree on this specific subject; and no, I don't think anyone is making things harder for the common man to understand, if I could sit through the courses I have had to pass to get my academic degrees (which don't mean dick btw), then anyone can, as I'm of average intelligence and more often than not I have the pleasure (or displeasure!) to meet brighter people than I.

anyway, good luck and be good.

peace

 

[waveguide]

So a badly written and organized textbook on programming is your evidence of purposeful obfuscation in the subject of computer programming?

no, it's your evidence

you may wish to reevaluate the significance of the windows operating system to the last twenty years of cultural everything.

one of these, bro?

 

[DrFever]

Shit where in the hell did all the Believers go hahaha ,,, They must of crawled back into there caves ,,,, its ok go knee Jerk and pray, for forgiveness Cause after all ,,, praying has done so well, just have to look back in history..
How praying really works..
Here is a idea you have 2 people looking for work one just stays in his cave and prays for a job ,, The other being its a real world , doesn't pray but goes out looking for work Which one do you think will find work first
A -- The prayer
B -- the person who realizes praying has done fuck all and gets off his knees and hits the streets looking

 

[DrFever]

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways.
Will anything happen? No. Of course not.

This is very odd. Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers. And Christians believe Jesus -- according to this recent article, "54% of American adults believe the Bible is literally true." In some areas of the country the number goes as high as 75%.

If the Bible is literally true, then something is seriously amiss. Simply look at the facts. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens.
In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says:

For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
If "nothing will be impossible to you", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying.
In Matthew 21:21:

I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.
If "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should dissappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note again that there is not a non-literal way to interpret "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", unless you replace "whatever" with "nothing" or "little."
The message is reiterated Mark 11:24:

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
If God says, "believe that you have received it, and it will be yours," and if we believe in God and his power, then what should happen if we pray to cure cancer tonight? It should be cured. Either that, or God is lying.
In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be:

"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." [ref]
Look at how direct this statement is: "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." This is the "Son of God" speaking. Have we taken him "too literally?" No. This is a simple, unambiguous statement. Have we taken his statement "out of context?" No - Jesus uses the word anyone. Yet Jesus' statement is obviously false. Because when we ask God to cure cancer tonight, nothing happens.
We see the same thing over and over again...

In Matthew 18:19 Jesus says:

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
In James 5:15-16 the Bible says:
And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
In Mark 9:23:
All things are possible to him who believes.
In Luke 1:37:
For with God nothing will be impossible.
Nothing could be simpler or clearer than Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible. Yet, when we pray to eliminate cancer, nothing happens.
And keep in mind that this is Jesus talking here. These are not the words of human beings. These are not the words of "inspired" human beings. These are supposedly the words of God himself, incarnated in a human body. Jesus is supposed to be a perfect, sinless being. And yet, it is obvious that Jesus is lying. What Jesus says is clearly incorrect.

 

[DrFever]

Which brings me to the next question ,,,, Does prayer actually work ? i mean who would of thought that not 1 jew prayed prior to being marched into the gas chamber by the millions ??
You telling me not one JEW in that line did not pray ??? Hell If Jesus was a Jew Surely God would of saved them ... But did he ..
Now typical answer we might get is ,, God had a reason hahaha its in his plan lmao
to let it happen ??? Right WTF typical weak answer from theist seriously WEAK

But really this brings us to something rather important .... PRAYER does it actually work i mean most knee jerkers probably spend half there life praying to there imaginary god
owe please cure my child from disease , owe god i sure hope i get that Job,, PLEASE PLEASE god i really need that loan make it come true

Three years ago, a multi-million-dollar, controlled, double-blind study was conducted to test intercessory prayer.
The Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) found two major results:
1) “Intercessory prayer had no effect on recovery from surgery without complications.”
2) “Patients who knew they were receiving intercessory prayer fared worse.”
Fared worse?! Even I was surprised by that. So were many Christians — this didn’t sit well with them.
This new article from Christianity Today, though, offers a rationalization I’ve never heard before. You can tell they’re really straining to find a silver lining…
Ironically, STEP actually supports the Christian worldview. Our prayers are nothing at all like magical incantations. Our God bears no resemblance to a vending machine. The real scandal of the study is not that the prayed-for group did worse, but that the not-prayed-for group received just as much, if not more, of God’s blessings. In other words, God seems to have granted favor without regard to either the quantity or even the quality of the prayers. By instinct, we might selfishly prefer that God give preferential treatment to those who are especially, deliberately, and correctly prayed for, but he seems to act otherwise.
True to his character, God appears inclined to heal and bless as many as possible.
So the fact that the prayers had no effect on the sick? Don’t think about that, say Gregory Fung and Christopher Fung, the authors of the article. Instead, they want you to consider that prayer works because the un-prayed-for people didn’t die a horrible death.
That’s one way of ignoring the evidence when it’s staring you in the face.
There’s gotta be a perfect analogy for this somewhere. What comes to mind?

 

[genedigger]

there was a study done in europe about people who pray during trying sitiuations and they found there was a definite change in the brain that led those praying to not feel pain as much.i believe they placed certain religious images in front of test subjects and electrocuted them and watched results

 

[genedigger]

so from a scientific veiwpoint yes praying does something.