Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

[Sophia]

I’m asking you to tell me exactly what kind of answer you’d be willing to accept.

Why do you keep on bringing up this nonsense? Didn’t you understand the principle? It is always the responsibility of the claimant to produce the evidence; be they physicists, chemists, theologians, astrologers or alchemists.

And even though it is true that the absence of PROOF is NOT a PROOF of absence, but the absence of EVIDENCE is a very strong EVIDENCE of absence. Are you familiar with this principle? And that hearsay is not “evidence”. Keep reading on to see that the church is on my side, not yours.

And my assertion remains that they were invalid experiments.

Your assertion is empty without evidence. Do you have any evidence against them? Because prayers are used all the time, both by the members of the clergy and the lay people. They are convinced that Jesus was serious when he said in John 14:13 “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”

Also check out Matthew 7:7 (Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.)

and Luke 11:9. (And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.)

Here are a few articles about the efficacy of prayers, and you just dismiss them out of hand? Google Scholar

Read up on the notion of possession and exorcism. It’s not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be.

I don’t mind if it is “complicated”. The church teaches that

1. demons exist.
2. demons can possess people (or even pigs?)
3. the exorcists can detect this possession.
4. the exorcists can expel the demons.

So the church teaches that

1. the non-physical entities (demons) can be discovered and influenced by physical means.
2. the methods employed are objective and
3. measurable and
4. repeatable.

Exactly as it is required by any other scientific experiment.

All you have to do is present the necessary ways and means, so anyone can repeat the procedure and ascertain that the method works. I can’t be any more helpful than that. Of course if you can present the handbook titled “Beginners’ guide to invoking and expelling demons”, or “Exorcism for Dummies” that would be nice - but ONLY if those books would carry the imprimatur of the church.

There is another field that could be explored, namely the canonization process. For any canonization there is a requirement of presenting at least two bona-fide miracles which can be attributed to the person to be canonized. That would also require the discovery and the analysis of some physical events, and some methodology to separate the “real” miracles from the “made-up” ones. (Lourdes?)

 

[Gorgias]

Your assertion is empty without evidence. Do you have any evidence against them?

It’s a malformed experiment. Prayer isn’t a slot machine. The basis for the hypothesis is without foundation. What “evidence” do you want? Read the Catechism, in its section on prayer.

John 14:13 “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.”

This isn’t about prayer. Jesus is talking to the apostles about the works that they will do. That’s what He’s talking about here.

Also check out Matthew 7:7 (Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.)

Note the context. Jesus is telling us that God knows what we need, and will give us what we need (not necessarily what we want or ask for): “Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him.”
Does Jesus say “God will give you exactly what you ask” or “your heavenly Father will give good things”? “To those who ask him” defines who’s asking, not what God gives.

and Luke 11:9. (And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you.)

Again, please read in context. Jesus is talking about the Father giving the gift of the Holy Spirit: “If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Father in heaven give the holy Spirit to those who ask him?”

So, Jesus is talking about the following gifts:

• works to be performed by the apostles
• good things that God decides on His own to give (as opposed to the things that people ask for)
• the gift of the Holy Spirit

You’re gonna tell me that the experiments you cite are testing for these things? Yeah. Right. The experiments are built on faulty grounds. .

All you have to do is present the necessary ways and means, so anyone can repeat the procedure and ascertain that the method works . I can’t be any more helpful than that.

Or obtuse.

If a demon has been exorcised, how do you propose that this be repeated?

 

[Sophia]

Let’s go back to the beginning for a second. When I asked how can we verify the claims of the apologists - using the empirical, scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, comparison), you said quite indignantly that it is irrational to expect to use the empirical method when you deal with God, demons, angels and miracles. You asserted that the method is simply inapplicable in this context.

My reply was that as long as there is an interface between the two realms, as long as we can send “signals” across the separating line, as long as the other side also interferes with our realm, it is perfectly rational to use the scientific method - because part of the interface resides in the physical realm. Looks like that you understood the problem, since you dropped the generic opposition. (Or maybe forgot about it.)

I suggested four methods

1. intercessory and supplicative prayers
2. the detection and exorcism of demons
3. the question of guardian angels and the
4. canonization of saints.

You keep forgetting the fact that millions of people (both lay persons and members of the clergy) keep on ASKING beneficial intercession to their problems, and, if and when something positive happens, which can be construed as a favorable reply, they praise God for the help received. Of course the 99.9999% of the replies which are unfavorable are swept under the rug.

But the point is that there is an intentional opening of a two-way communication channel between the physical and the non-physical realms and as such the empirical / scientific method is applicable. Whether the method will substantiate the existence of the non-physical is secondary. (It does not.)

Your objection against the prayers is irrelevant. You are alone against the whole hierarchy of the church. The church is on my side - keep on praying, and door will be open, your petition will be granted. It is NOT only a “green light” for the apostles.

You could not present any objection against the exorcism, except the childish remark “If a demon has been exorcised, how do you propose that this be repeated?” Answer: use it on the next demon. That is the repetition. If the official exorcists maintain that demons exist, that these demons can occupy some people, and that these demons can be exorcised - all physical processes, then your objection against the empirical / scientific method’s applicability is proven invalid, again.

You disregarded the significance of the canonization process. JP II was declared saint following the “miracle” of a brain aneurism healing after the patient Floribeth Mora Diaz prayed to the deceased pope for intercession on her behalf. (How did the examination process find a causative relationship between the prayer and the miracle… now that is a real mystery. ) But the point stays, the Vatican teaches that intercessory prayer “works”.

If you can propose anything new, I will gladly contemplate it. But insofar your objections are meaningless, the official stance of the church supports my side. Not just meaningless, also boring. Repeatability is not always good.

 

[Gorgias]

Your objection against the prayers is irrelevant. You are alone against the whole hierarchy of the church. The church is on my side - keep on praying, and door will be open, your petition will be granted. It is NOT only a “green light” for the apostles.

Hardly. I’ve cited my source – the catechism. That you refuse to recognize the truth of the rebuttal is unfortunate, but not unexpected.

Answer: use it on the next demon. That is the repetition.

Yeah… and they do. So… what’s your objection?

You disregarded the significance of the canonization process. JP II was declared saint following the “miracle” of a brain aneurism healing after the patient Floribeth Mora Diaz prayed to the deceased pope for intercession on her behalf. (How did the examination process find a causative relationship between the prayer and the miracle… now that is a real mystery. ) But the point stays, the Vatican teaches that intercessory prayer “works”.

Note that all that can be asserted is “intercessory prayer” followed by subsequent “miracle.” It’s not saying that every prayer leads to a miracle. In other words, it’s an appeal to faith, not to empirical proof. You can’t use the scientific method to test that appeal. Sorry.

 

[Sophia]

Hardly. I’ve cited my source – the catechism.

The catechism does NOT say that the “green light” was only presented for the apostles.

Yeah… and they do. So… what’s your objection?

First, it is another empirical method to use in conjunction with the non-physical. You keep forgetting to admit: “Yes, it is rational to expect empirical methods for the non-physical”. Second, that there is no declared method to invoke and exorcise a demon. Until that happens, it is just another empty proposition.

Though I accept that the exorcism is interesting. No one ever sees a demon. Is this fact due to the power of exorcism, or that there are no demons? That is why we need the spells to invoke demons. If there is nothing, the exorcism cannot fail to succeed… after a fashion. Is there a handbook “Invoking demons - a beginner’s guide”?

Note that all that can be asserted is “intercessory prayer” followed by subsequent “miracle.” It’s not saying that every prayer leads to a miracle. In other words, it’s an appeal to faith, not to empirical proof. You can’t use the scientific method to test that appeal. Sorry.

The alleged healing was “empirical”. And one can try to keep praying to any of the saints, and find out if there is a “miraculous” healing, or not. (You need no faith to see a limb regrown.) You need faith to accept that it was due to the intercessory prayer. Then use statistics to see if there is at least some correlation - causation would be too much to hope for. How many amputees will sprout new limbs after a million of intercessory prayers?

 

[Gorgias]

The catechism does NOT say that the “green light” was only presented for the apostles.

If you say so:

2614 When Jesus openly entrusts to his disciples the mystery of prayer to the Father, he reveals to them what their prayer and ours must be, once he has returned to the Father in his glorified humanity. What is new is to "ask in his name."78 Faith in the Son introduces the disciples into the knowledge of the Father, because Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life."79 Faith bears its fruit in love: it means keeping the word and the commandments of Jesus, it means abiding with him in the Father who, in him, so loves us that he abides with us. In this new covenant the certitude that our petitions will be heard is founded on the prayer of Jesus.

2615 Even more, what the Father gives us when our prayer is united with that of Jesus is “another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth.” This new dimension of prayer and of its circumstances is displayed throughout the farewell discourse. In the Holy Spirit, Christian prayer is a communion of love with the Father, not only through Christ but also in him: “Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name; ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.”

Are you sure about that?

In any case, my claim is that the CCC rebuts your case about what prayer is all about. Since you don’t want to go read it yourself, please allow me to quote it to you:

by prayer of petition we express awareness of our relationship with God. We are creatures who are not our own beginning, not the masters of adversity, not our own last end. We are sinners who as Christians know that we have turned away from our Father. Our petition is already a turning back to him.

Not “by prayer of petition we get stuff”. Not “by prayer of petition we win the cosmic slot machine.” No… simply, "by prayer of petition we express awareness of our relationship with God… our petition is already a turning back to him.

“ Yes, it is rational to expect empirical methods for the non-physical ”.

No… my objection to your “interface” assertion is that _you cannot predict when the interface will occur, and therefore, you can never use “interface testing” to prove or disprove God’s existence. C’mon, Sophia… keep up.

You need faith to accept that it was due to the intercessory prayer.

Agreed. But you cannot use empirical methods to test faith. Thank you for finally getting it.

 

[Sophia]

No… my objection to your “interface” assertion is that _you cannot predict when the interface will occur, and therefore, you can never use “interface testing” to prove or disprove God’s existence.

The problem is that you have no idea how statistical testing is conducted. The interface is always there, it does not need to be predicted. We don’t need to predict at which point in time will the “miracle” occur, only to test for if the “miracle” happened or not. In other words we need to predict the chance of the “miracle”. Just like testing the efficacy of new medication (or a prayer), all we need to predict if the illness will be cured (or the petition granted) - not at which application of the medication was successful.

Agreed. But you cannot use empirical methods to test faith.

Why should anyone test the “faith”? It is there… we all know it. What we test for is the reliability of the faith. Is this faith misplaced, or not? And that is perfectly suitable for empirical testing.

Any patient can ask JP II (or any other saint) to intercede on their behalf. The proper way to test the result is to take a running total of the prayers and both the successful (and non-successful) outcomes. At the end of the predetermined period we can calculate the ratio of the successful results and the unsuccessful ones. Then using a chi-square probe (or other statistical method) we can find out if there was at least a stochastic relationship between the prayer and the result (as I said, a causative relationship would be too much to hope for).

Using the example given, the Vatican ascertained using some unknown methods that disappearance of the aneurism was the result of the intercessory prayer (and the prayer did not ask God to do anything, it asked the deceased JP II to intercede on the patient’s behalf). What I am asking is: “what method was used to determine that there was a causative relationship between the prayer and the healing.”

I wish that eventually I could say “thank you that finally you understood the point” - without having your condescending tone.

 

[TechieGuy]

What is a “200%” proof?

Everclear?

 

[Gorgias]

The problem is that you have no idea how statistical testing is conducted.

One of the problems is that your assumptions are generally erroneous.

The interface is always there, it does not need to be predicted. We don’t need to predict at which point in time will the “miracle” occur, only to test for if the “miracle” happened or not.

Nice try. That would only establish correlation, not causation.

But hey… keep trying.

In other words we need to predict the chance of the “miracle”. Just like testing the efficacy of new medication (or a prayer), all we need to predict if the illness will be cured (or the petition granted) - not at which application of the medication was successful.

Only if you define prayer as ‘medicine’, which works through non-sentient, biological-chemical mechanisms. Again, it all comes down to the premise of your hypothesis… which, yet again is flawed.

 

[Sophia]

Nice try. That would only establish correlation, not causation.

That would be MORE than satisfactory - as a first step. It would be breathtakingly, incredibly wonderful… if it would happen.

You keep avoiding an answer to this simple analysis. Why?

I don’t mind if it is “complicated”. The church teaches that

1. demons exist.
2. demons can possess people (or even pigs?)
3. the exorcists can detect this possession.
4. the exorcists can expel the demons.

So the church teaches that

1. the non-physical entities (demons) can be discovered and influenced by physical means.
2. the methods employed are objective and
3. measurable and
4. repeatable.

Exactly as it is required by any other scientific experiment.

The question is not “IF” the non-physical can be established by empirical means, rather “HOW” can the non-physical be established by empirical means. This is a huge breakthrough. Can you offer some method?

Only if you define prayer as ‘medicine’, which works through non-sentient, biological-chemical mechanisms.

This “defense” is worse than the “accusation”. A medicine would either work or not. God, however chooses to listen to some supplications, and disregard others - even if one assumes that the positive outcomes actually come from God himself. This is blatant favoritism, not “love”, especially since no one “deserves” the divine intervention. And the chance is very low, next to nonexistent.

The point is that the Vatican accepted the prayer as an evidence for the intersession performed by JP II. And considered it so satisfactory that it was one of the necessary two miracles. (Regardless what the catechism says.) The Vatican also accepts that some “miracles” are real, bona-fide miracles, while others are not. The question is: “what are the criteria the church uses to decide which one is which”?

What are the physical, empirical criteria to find out if there is a demonic possession, something that can be performed by everyone, and realize that a demonic possession actually took place?

 

[Gorgias]

That would be MORE than satisfactory - as a first step. It would be breathtakingly, incredibly wonderful… if it would happen.

There’s still a problem: at what rate would you allow for the possibility of ‘correlation’, even? One miracle per 10 prayers? Per 100? Per 1,000,000? You see, all you have to do is deny that there’s even sufficient correlation, in order to halt the analysis.

So… no thanks. You don’t get to make that call. (Please recall the definition of a ‘miracle’ – it’s a physical event unexplainable by science (or medicine, as it were).) . For a believer, even one miracle is sufficient to establish the proposition of a correlation.

You keep avoiding an answer to this simple analysis. Why?

You’re the football-holding Lucy to my Charlie Brown. Your memory must be much shorter than mine, though, I fear. I recall your reaction to the assertions of the tools and methods that philosophers and theologians use. So, I already know what your reaction will be. And therefore, I refuse to take a run at the ball, knowing full well that you’ll simply yank it away at the last moment.

So… find another rube; this one is already too familiar with your MO.

 

[Sophia]

There’s still a problem: at what rate would you allow for the possibility of ‘correlation’, even?

That is a mere technicality, once you realized that the non-physical CAN be investigated by empirical means.

For a believer, even one miracle is sufficient to establish the proposition of a correlation.

Yes, even one real, true, bona-fide miracle would be (and should be) sufficient, and not just for the believers, for the skeptics, too. The question is “what event qualifies as a miracle”? You said:

it’s a physical event unexplainable by science (or medicine, as it were)

But that is insufficient. A “real” miracle would be “…a physical event unexplainable IN PRINCIPLE by science (or medicine, as it were)”. Which would presuppose omniscience. What is called a “miracle” is something that seems to be unexplainable by science at this moment.

To use some medical “miracles” does not work. The workings of biology are the least known of all the natural sciences. Try physics or chemistry. Both are much better established than biology, or medical science. A real miracle would be the against the known laws of physics (though we really don’t know all the laws of physics). For example a temperature lower than the absolute zero. Or a physical object moving faster than the speed of light. Or rearranging the stars to display the Lord’s Prayer in every language. Now that would be a nice, juicy miracle. Re-growing amputated limbs? Bah, humbug! That is not a big deal. All sorts of animals have excellent regeneration abilities.

It is not an easy task to create a “real” miracle. In the ancient times people were so uneducated that any shaman could produce something “miraculous”. Not any more.

Your memory must be much shorter than mine, though, I fear. I recall your reaction to the assertions of the tools and methods that philosophers and theologians use.

No, my memory works just fine. Your suggested “methods” are not even necessary when you deal with the “demonology” problem. There comes a “demon”, the exorcist employs SOME physical/empirical investigation - WHAT exactly does he do??? - decides that there is a demon at work, then performs some more physical action - WHAT exactly does he do??? -, and then declares that the demon is gone.

Absolutely no need for those unspecified “tools and methods” that the philosophers and theologians allegedly use. (I already opened a thread in which I was looking for some knowledgeable apologists. So far there are no takers.)

So… find another rube; this one is already too familiar with your MO.

I will not miss your constant attempts to avoid the topic. An honest exchange of ideas is interesting. To fight the avoidance attempts is not.

 

[Gorgias]

That is a mere technicality, once you realized that the non-physical CAN be investigated by empirical means.

No… you’re not proposing to investigate the “non-physical.” The experiments you describe are measuring the physical effects of supernatural acts. Big difference.

What is called a “miracle” is something that seems to be unexplainable by science at this moment.

And… there we have it. That’s why your “miracle experiment” or “prayer experiment” or any other “interface experiment” will, a priori, fail: you get the opportunity to say, “well… even though I can’t explain it right now, that doesn’t mean it’s supernatural.” End of story. So glad you see the futility of the experiments you’ve proposed!

(I already opened a thread in which I was looking for some knowledgeable apologists. So far there are no takers.

You’ve gotten plenty of advice, there, to call Jimmy Akin or David Anders during their shows. Take the good advice when you’ve been given it.

An honest exchange of ideas is interesting.

Spot on.

And therefore, when we learn – through the experience of many threads – that this isn’t what you’re interested in, that’s the time to move on.

 

[Zynxensar]

You can’t.

We can’t even have a 100% certainty into matters.

If, somehow, someone was actually able to prove with 200% certainty that God doesn’t exist and presented this information to the public, then I’m pretty sure everyone would be atheists. It’s the same if someone was able to prove with 200% certainty that God exists: there would be NO atheists in the world and everyone would be religious. This is because 200% certainty would mean a person is ABSOLUTELY certain WITHOUT any doubt.

Even now, there is no 100% certainty that God doesn’t exist and neither is there 100% certainty that God exists. Does the fact that we cannot prove, with 100% certainty, on whether God exists mean that God doesn’t exist? No.

However, the evidence found is heavily in support of the idea that God does exist.

 

[Sophia]

No… you’re not proposing to investigate the “non-physical.” The experiments you describe are measuring the physical effects of supernatural acts. Big difference.

Wow! The surprises never cease. How would you investigate the non-physical directly and NOT
through its physical acts?

Of course we are trying to investigate the alleged physical effects of the alleged non-physical - and based upon the effect we try to draw conclusion considering the “source”. If the alleged non-physical does not manifest itself in a physical manner, there is nothing to investigate at all. But you claim that the alleged non-physical manifests itself in some “revelation”. That could be investigated directly, if it ever happened.

You consider the “alleged” revelation to be THE interface. But there is no direct, physical evidence for that revelation (hearsay is NOT evidence).

On the other hand, investigating the “demons” (which you avoid as the devil avoids the holy water! ) and the prayers happen in the here and now. But the result is always negative, so it does NOT support you. (The absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence.)

And… there we have it. That’s why your “miracle experiment” or “prayer experiment” or any other “interface experiment” will, a priori, fail: you get the opportunity to say, “well… even though I can’t explain it right now, that doesn’t mean it’s supernatural.” End of story.

Why are you surprised? What you do is refer to the “God of the gaps”. And as time goes by, that “gap” is getting smaller and smaller. Whose track record is better? Yours or the skeptics’?

The point is that there are no miracles to be investigated. Show me any event that cannot be the result of some natural sources (in principle!). I gave you a few examples in my previous post. Any one of those would suffice. And I am sure there are many other possibilities. We are already quite familiar with several laws of nature. They are not axiomatically true, but they are so well established that violating them would require a total overhaul of physics and chemistry and biology. You see, skeptics are not “married” to their worldview, unlike the believers. For the believers their world would collapse if God would disappear from it. If some supernatural would be established, then our knowledge would grow. And any self-respecting skeptic would celebrate this event - if it ever happened.

You’ve gotten plenty of advice, there, to call Jimmy Akin or David Anders during their shows. Take the good
advice when you’ve been given it.

Oh, I am trying. During their shows, even if I would be accepted there cannot be an in-depth exchange of ideas. It only allows sound bites. Jimmy Aiken is a regular contributor on this website, and I checked his website, too. Unfortunately I did not see an option to initiate a conversation. We shall see what happens.

Continued below…

 

[Sophia]

And therefore, when we learn – through the experience of many threads – that this isn’t what you’re interested in, that’s the time to move on.

However, I am HERE, and ready to answer, you don’t need to make assumptions about what I am interested in. I already expressed it clearly. That is one of the differences between my humble self, and the assumed non-physical entities, whose existence is not supported by any physical means. But if you want to move on, I will not keep you.

Whether you stay or decide to move on, here are a few principles that you should keep in mind.

1. Absence of evidence is a very strong evidence of absence (though it is NOT a “proof”).
2. Hearsay is not evidence, even if it resides in a “holy book”.
3. The duck principle.

It would be a good idea if you internalized these principles, and use them as a “sieve” before you deliver your thoughts to the open marketplace of ideas.

 

[Sophia]

This deserves a longer answer.

That’s why your “miracle experiment” or “prayer experiment” or any other “interface experiment” will, a priori, fail: you get the opportunity to say, “well… even though I can’t explain it right now, that doesn’t mean it’s supernatural.”

Actually, the “joke” is on you. The skeptic is not interested in giving you an explanation just “how” a specific event can be explained via natural means. Because the lack of explanation does not point to a “supernatural”. As I said before, it is simply the even-shrinking “God of the gaps” that you can offer as an argument for the supernatural. And that is insufficient. A real, true-blue miracle would be one which cannot EVER be explained via natural ways and means. Not just now, NEVER.

There is the oft-repeated assumption that the laws of nature are created by God, so he can overrule them at his whim. Fine. You are welcome to ask God to manifest himself with a real miracle. If he does, you win. The problem is, of course, that God is not a “vending machine”, so you can never count of God in the times of need.

Just read all three posts, this one and the two above. And have fun with them. If you decide to walk away, best of luck to you. If you decide to stay, read and internalize the three simple principles enumerated in the previous post.

 

[Sipetradayni]

I think it’s like this: I’m breathing the air right now & someone says “What if one day someone will prove that there really is no air?!” lol

We can’t see the air physically & yet we can feel it’s presence around us.

God bless everyone!

 

[Sachsen]

What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

We’d have to invent him, of course. Then again, I’m joking.

 

[Gorgias]

You consider the “alleged” revelation to be THE interface.

I’ve never made the claim that Scripture alone is the only means that God has communicated with us.

But there is no direct, physical evidence for that revelation (hearsay is NOT evidence).

Unreasonable demand. For comparison: what “direct, physical evidence” do you have that Shakespeare wrote the literature attributed to him?

investigating the “demons” (which you avoid as the devil avoids the holy water!

Nah… I’m just keeping us on-point and letting you get away with changing the subject when you’ve lost part of an argument.

the prayers happen in the here and now. But the result is always negative, so it does NOT support you.

The result is always negative? How do you substantiate that claim?