The existence of God and the efficacy of prayer

[kyrani99]

And yet you seem already to be personally convinced, despite the fact that you do not have that evidence. This is what is puzzling me. You understand why personal experience is insufficient to convince anyone (including the experiencer) of anything, yet you still give it as your reason for being convinced.

Personal experience is enough for the experiencer.
A simple experiment. If you put your hand on a cold stove you don't get burnt. (This is the control experiment). If you put your hand on a hot stove you get burnt. So you can conclude that the hot stove burns your skin. This is conclusive evidence. You don't need to do a clinical trial with thousands of people to verify the evidence you have.

None of our subjective experiences can be verified by science. There is NO evidence that anyone can give to another person to verify that they are conscious and have personal /subjective experience. But that does not mean that the person themselves doesn't have evidence that they are conscious and have subjective experience. Of course they do.

I have evidence, not only in what I was able to perceive BUT ALSO in being able to use the knowledge I gained to get myself well again, repeatedly. However that is not enough to show another person. As far as anyone else is concerned it is still anecdotal evidence.

I can guide another person to heal themselves and that becomes a bit more evidence but it needs many. I cannot afford to conduct a clinical trial and I know that I would never get the funding to conduct one either.

The best that I can do is show scientifically that cancer is about stem cells deliberately making changes. And to show that they can reverse those changes.

 

[Pixel42]

But where subjective experiences can be influenced by cognitive biases and fallible perceptions even ones own are insufficient to reach a reliable conclusion. That's why the scientific method had to be invented.

The effectiveness of medical treatments is the textbook example of subjective experiences leading to false conclusions. People still insist something like homeopathy works, even though careful and methodical scientific testing has shown it to be ineffective, because their own subjective experiences have misled them.

 

[Pup]

The official medical story about cancer is that the immune system normally kills cancer cells and that somehow the cancer cells, if successful, are able to evade the immune system.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ROFL

If you know so much about cancer that you feel you can laugh at the stupidity of the best researchers, why not develop a better cancer drug in your spare time, while waiting to get evidence for your prayer-based cure? Not a cure, just something to help a little. People like me would be glad for you to knock out an easy drug that might give them another couple years.

There are many cancers with many attributes, though certainly what Pixel42 read is a good summary of a common type.

Why would various types of immunotherapy work at all, if cancers weren't evading the immune system?

Further complicating the matter, not all cancers have a high tumor expression of PD-L1. Like mine, for example. Immunotherapy wouldn't work for me, unless I had my PD-L1 tested and it came back unusual for my cohort. But immunotherapy does work for others.

 

[Humots]

You must go with what you believe is the best way. You have a lot of faith in science because you are convinced by the evidence you see. I am not convinced. I am a scientist and I respect science but I am also a theist and I have been able to have good results where science or rather doctors failed me.

In what field?

What degree(s) do you have, and at what institute did you study?

 

[The Sparrow]

I answered the question by Rincewind in post 1291.
I am saying the potential is real and the evidence is seen in animals that can regrow limbs after the are lost.

And I didn't say that lame prayer worked. I said the opposite to that.

And what you refuse to acknowledge is that humans have never regrown limbs in response to prayer. What the hell salamanders have to do with this is beyond me.

And as for god refusing to be a puppet, the clear implication is that god would avoid healing a suffering child's cancer because 'someone was watching to see if he would do it'. How utterly petty.

 

[Rincewind]

And what you refuse to acknowledge is that humans have never regrown limbs in response to prayer. What the hell salamanders have to do with this is beyond me.

And as for god refusing to be a puppet, the clear implication is that god would avoid healing a suffering child's cancer because 'someone was watching to see if he would do it'. How utterly petty.

Either salamanders have better prayers - or a better god!

 

[sackett]

Easy one!

In what field?

What degree(s) do you have, and at what institute did you study?

Heck, ain't ya ever heard of the Christian Scientists? They're still a thing. Mary Acher Beddy & all that.

Or whatever her dismal name was.

 

[Donn]

Personal experience is enough for the experiencer.
A simple experiment. If you put your hand on a cold stove you don't get burnt. (This is the control experiment). If you put your hand on a hot stove you get burnt. So you can conclude that the hot stove burns your skin. This is conclusive evidence..

Experience is not explanation. You may think it is, but you would be wrong. The tools of science are what wring explanation from the raw material of experience.

When you go it alone, you are a thrall to flaw; error will be your light; harm, your shadow.

 

[kyrani99]

But where subjective experiences can be influenced by cognitive biases and fallible perceptions even ones own are insufficient to reach a reliable conclusion. That's why the scientific method had to be invented.

The effectiveness of medical treatments is the textbook example of subjective experiences leading to false conclusions. People still insist something like homeopathy works, even though careful and methodical scientific testing has shown it to be ineffective, because their own subjective experiences have misled them.

The scientific method does not deny an experimenter from doing an experiment. To be scientific all that is required is that a control experiment be done along side the actual experiment to rule out the possibility that the effect seen is not caused by some other means.

There can be cognitive bias and there can be fallible perceptions but that does not mean that in every case a single experimenter's observations fall into this category. Einstein developed his theories of relativity, which are part of the foundations of physics, using thought experiments. His theories were verified by experiments and found to be valid.

Your argument is the same as Sam Harris, "if you can offer the subject a drink and by that action influence them then everything they say can be deemed unreliable". That is ********.

But speaking of bias and false views, how unbiased are clinical trials when up to half the data at times is withdrawn from publication or patients that have bad reactions to drugs are removed from the trial to make for the results that will get the drugs approved. How reliable is the science sold as the gold standard. ROFL It is full of bad science. Here have a glance at this: https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science?language=en

As for homeopathy and acupuncture and other methods, they are effective and they have not been properly tested. Who has tested them? Why the opposition, the drug companies that are losing some business to these alternative therapies.

I have had acupuncture myself and found it so effective that I learnt it to treat myself and have done so just as effectively as when I had gone to a therapist. Nowadays of course I don't need it because mental prescriptions are the ultimate in therapy.

 

[kyrani99]

If you know so much about cancer that you feel you can laugh at the stupidity of the best researchers, why not develop a better cancer drug in your spare time, while waiting to get evidence for your prayer-based cure? Not a cure, just something to help a little. People like me would be glad for you to knock out an easy drug that might give them another couple years.

There are many cancers with many attributes, though certainly what Pixel42 read is a good summary of a common type.

Why would various types of immunotherapy work at all, if cancers weren't evading the immune system?

Further complicating the matter, not all cancers have a high tumor expression of PD-L1. Like mine, for example. Immunotherapy wouldn't work for me, unless I had my PD-L1 tested and it came back unusual for my cohort. But immunotherapy does work for others.

A drug? And another couple of years? What! An ah ha experience works to bring the body to spontaneous remission AND it is FREE! And that is not all. The person not only has a spontaneous remission, they can avoid developing cancer ever again. AND live out their lives as normal.

But of course the person has to be humane/ non-toxic. The reason is that they must have autonomy, to be able to make their own independent choices. Inhumane people all belong to networks (gangs), which means they are bound by mob rule. If others in their "circle of friends" was them gone, then there is nothing they can do to avoid it.

The immune system aids cancer as I described in an earlier post.

Immunotherapy is about turning the immune system against the body (because cancer carries the signature of self) does give some result sometimes but at a price. There are numerous types of reactions /side effects from rashes to inflammation of endocrine glands. http://www.curetoday.com/articles/e...ide-effects-from-immunotherapy-in-lung-cancer

 

[kyrani99]

In what field?

What degree(s) do you have, and at what institute did you study?

I have a Bachelor of Science from the University of NSW. I ended up majoring in chemistry after battling with the administration in an effort to do a more general degree. They wanted everyone to specialize in something. I ended up doing several extra units in order to do what I wanted and satisfy their requirements.

I started a Doctoral thesis (PhD degree) in Geology but never finished it because I became involved in a business venture in another town.

I worked to put myself through university by working at the university as a research assistant for many different academics in different fields (chemistry, biological sciences and physics). So I got a lot of extra education with practical knowledge.

I also have a Diploma of Computing Science from an American institution called Control Data Institute.

 

[kyrani99]

And what you refuse to acknowledge is that humans have never regrown limbs in response to prayer. What the hell salamanders have to do with this is beyond me.

And as for god refusing to be a puppet, the clear implication is that god would avoid healing a suffering child's cancer because 'someone was watching to see if he would do it'. How utterly petty.

I have acknowledge that humans, to my knowledge at least, have not regrown limbs. I said I believe the potential is real for being able to regrow limbs.

You are influence by Christian (Pauline) theology, which is just a fiction, with a few truth scattered here and there for effect.

We need to take responsibility for the way we live, not only as individuals but as a society. The fact that there are children suffering is a reflection on us, as a corrupt society. People, who are humane, have to wake up and realize that they are the ones who hold the reigns of power and can exterminate the evil and make for a utopia on Earth.

 

[kyrani99]

Either salamanders have better prayers - or a better god!

In my understanding there is only one God or Ultimate Reality.
Maybe we should ask the salamanders to tell us how it is done.

 

[kyrani99]

Experience is not explanation. You may think it is, but you would be wrong. The tools of science are what wring explanation from the raw material of experience.

When you go it alone, you are a thrall to flaw; error will be your light; harm, your shadow.

What tools of science? The experimenter using his /her noodle to reason, arrives at an understanding and develop a theory, preferably that can make predictions.

A lot of people have "gone it alone"

Newton saw an apple fall out of a tree and came up with the laws of motion that are still in use today and good approximations, good enough to send rockets to the moon and other planets.

Einstein was a clerk in a patents office working alone. He imagines travelling on a light beam and came up with genius, the theories of relativity, foundations of physics.

These are two that quickly come to mind but there a many, many scientists that were inspired by their own subjective experience.

My light is the light of Truth and my shadow... Oh.. I am a shaman and shadowless these days.

 

[kyrani99]

Heck, ain't ya ever heard of the Christian Scientists? They're still a thing. Mary Acher Beddy & all that.

Or whatever her dismal name was.

I am NOT a Christian scientist. I am not even a Christian AND I think most of Christianity is a fiction.

I am a theist of no particular religion.

 

[sackett]

Well la de dah, Buffalo Bob

I am NOT a Christian scientist. I am not even a Christian AND I think most of Christianity is a fiction.

I am a theist of no particular religion.

I say yer a Chris Sci, & that's my personal experience. It's good enuff for ME!

It was good enough for Moses too.

Those regenerated newt limbs don't always include bones.

 

[Pup]

A drug? And another couple of years? What! An ah ha experience works to bring the body to spontaneous remission AND it is FREE! And that is not all. The person not only has a spontaneous remission, they can avoid developing cancer ever again. AND live out their lives as normal.

But of course the person has to be humane/ non-toxic. The reason is that they must have autonomy, to be able to make their own independent choices. Inhumane people all belong to networks (gangs), which means they are bound by mob rule. If others in their "circle of friends" was them gone, then there is nothing they can do to avoid it.

I see that you've got an excuse already prepared. If you can't put someone into spontaneous remission, it's their own fault. They're inhumane and toxic.

Insulting the patient who fails to be cured is a very common technique in quackery. Patients need to be manipulated into following the treatment and believing it will work by faith, not data. Insulting allows the believers to picture themselves as the ingroup and shun the nonbelievers who are the ridiculed outgroup.

I have never run into in real medicine. Patients are never blamed for failing the treatment or having side effects. They're certainly never labelled with negative words or categorized as certain types of negative people. It's a respectful process, because there's no need to manipulate people emotionally. The data is plain for all to see.

When I developed brain mets on one drug, the doctor never even hinted it was my fault. It's well known that the drug barely crosses the blood-brain barrier, so the fault was rightly placed on the drug and I was switched to another, which does cross the BBB, and the mets quickly went away.

That's how I want to be treated by doctors, as a respectable human being treated for a disease, not as less than human to protect their ego if their treatment fails. "Inhumane" is a horrible thing to call a dying person, whether you mean the usual definition of "cruel" or the rarer definition of "not human." Just, no. Don't do that to people.

If you don't want to be perceived as a quack, I'd strongly suggest not acting the way quacks do.

 

[Pup]

But speaking of bias and false views, how unbiased are clinical trials when up to half the data at times is withdrawn from publication or patients that have bad reactions to drugs are removed from the trial to make for the results that will get the drugs approved. How reliable is the science sold as the gold standard. ROFL It is full of bad science. Here have a glance at this: https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science?language=en

If certain patients are eliminated from trials to make the data look better, they get on the internet and report it to friends with the same disease. That's how I learned that one drug, still in trials, had a higher risk of lung problems. I noticed the instructions on the new drug application say to titrate it up to prevent lung problems. That wasn't the original protocol, but I wasn't surprised. It's harder for drug companies to hide information nowadays, and risky if they do, thanks to lawsuits.

The key is to train patients to be alert, educated, and not gullible. That's second nature for someone like me, but I do worry about, say, a little old lady with seizures who's been taught to trust her doctors implicitly and is naturally desperate for help. So much vulnerability.

As for homeopathy and acupuncture and other methods, they are effective and they have not been properly tested. Who has tested them? Why the opposition, the drug companies that are losing some business to these alternative therapies.

That's a good example of the bad science you're talking about. If a person or a company decides a treatment works, but it doesn't pass the scientific tests, bad science suggests to blame the tests and forge ahead with the treatment anyway.

 

[Donn]

The scientific method does not deny an experimenter from doing an experiment. To be scientific all that is required is that a control experiment be done along side the actual experiment to rule out the possibility that the effect seen is not caused by some other means.

That's only a start. Getting strangers to repeat the experiment is key.

Here we are chatting about science, when you're playing fast and loose with 'experience'.

When it comes to cancer, your ideas are sick. People who listen to you will die.

There can be cognitive bias and there can be fallible perceptions but that does not mean that in every case a single experimenter's observations fall into this category. Einstein developed his theories of relativity, which are part of the foundations of physics, using thought experiments. His theories were verified by experiments and found to be valid.

All hum-drum from the play book of special pleading authority arguments. Einstein therefore my cancer praying cure works.

But speaking of bias and false views, ..It is full of bad science. Here have a glance at this: https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science?language=en

Science can never make a mistake. This is another from the playbook. See how they messed up? Therefore my shaman hum hut healing!

As for homeopathy and acupuncture and other methods, they are effective and they have not been properly tested. Who has tested them? Why the opposition, the drug companies that are losing some business to these alternative therapies.

I am stunned supine to see you reach for conspiracy to add to your many clichés. Do you paint chocolate box covers for a living?

I have had acupuncture myself and found it so effective that I learnt it to treat myself and have done so just as effectively as when I had gone to a therapist. Nowadays of course I don't need it because mental prescriptions are the ultimate in therapy.

You edgy lab-coated anime character, you.

What tools of science?

All the ones you evidently drained from short-term memory after your Bsc.

Newton saw an apple fall out of a tree and came up with the laws of motion that are still in use today and good approximations, good enough to send rockets to the moon and other planets.

Newton is wheeled-out to join Einstein in the tap dance against the sunset. With flamingos.

I should mention that prayer does not generate thrust, even when you pull the thumbs, and has little effect in rocketry.

My light is the light of Truth and my shadow... Oh.. I am a shaman and shadowless these days.

And if you dispense your sham medical opinions anywhere other than within your narcissistic head, you are an active danger to others.

I am a theist of no particular religion.

The only one with the Real^®™ Truth^®™.

 

[Pixel42]

The scientific method does not deny an experimenter from doing an experiment. To be scientific all that is required is that a control experiment be done along side the actual experiment to rule out the possibility that the effect seen is not caused by some other means.

There can be cognitive bias and there can be fallible perceptions but that does not mean that in every case a single experimenter's observations fall into this category. Einstein developed his theories of relativity, which are part of the foundations of physics, using thought experiments. His theories were verified by experiments and found to be valid.

But we know that the perception of whether or not a medical treatment works does fall into this category; the placebo effect, regression to the mean and simple coincidence are known sources of error, and reliable ways to eliminate them are known and must be applied before any conclusions can be drawn.

Your argument is the same as Sam Harris, "if you can offer the subject a drink and by that action influence them then everything they say can be deemed unreliable". That is ********.

But speaking of bias and false views, how unbiased are clinical trials when up to half the data at times is withdrawn from publication or patients that have bad reactions to drugs are removed from the trial to make for the results that will get the drugs approved. How reliable is the science sold as the gold standard. ROFL It is full of bad science. Here have a glance at this: https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science?language=en

This is why the road to full scientific acceptance is a series of hurdles. When establishing the effectiveness of a medical treatment the first positive clinical trial is just the first one; then comes peer review, publication, and replication. At any point deficiencies and incompetence can be detected.

I remind you that your own hypothesis has yet to clear the first hurdle, indeed you do not even seem to have a plan for how to do so. This is why the fact that you are already convinced that your hypothesis is correct is so absurd, especially for someone who claims to be a scientist.

As for homeopathy and acupuncture and other methods, they are effective and they have not been properly tested. Who has tested them? Why the opposition, the drug companies that are losing some business to these alternative therapies.

Perhaps you should first ask yourself why the people who make the claims for these alternative therapies do not properly test them themselves; it is surely their responsibility to do so.

In fact there has been ample testing of both homeopathy and acupuncture carried out in many cases by universities rather than drug companies, and with the full cooperation of the practitioners. There is some limited evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture in pain control but for nothing else; homeopathy is totally ineffective.