Responses to a few common arguments

[BluePriest]

And 1000 years ago walking on the moon would be just as unrealistic. Or Tv. Or countless other inventions. What counts one thing out as not being scientifically, possible, while something else is? Have you seen the newest GI Joe Movie? What about nano bots that could eat metal? An invisibility suit that takes pictures of whats behind you and puts it in front? An accelerator suit? Do you consider any of those ideas a plausible idea?

Where do you draw the line?

You say god caused it, I respond with what caused god? And what caused what caused god?

God is considered to be there from the beginning. He is ever present. He is the beginning. There doesnt need to be a cause for him.

You haven't proven god to exist, so there is no reason to suppose that he does. It's the same logic that you apply to leprechauns, unicorns, and the loch ness monster. You assume that they don't exist because no one has provided any evidence that they do.

And what would you consider enough "proof" for him to exist. 

Have you ever heard of the "Footprints" poem? I had a time, a very dark time in my life that I was walking down the street, my parents in the behind me, and I felt alone. However, I heard footprints right by me plain as day. Do you consider this proof?

I went to a doctors and was told if I didnt have physical therapy then I would have chronic joint pain in my knee the rest of my life. The very next week almost, I went to church (as I do every Sunday) and we had a guest speaker. He preached on healing and how it still happens to day, if you just trust God. I am not one to pray for myself, not for physical things at least, however, right there, i trusted God and prayed for my leg, didnt go up or anything, didnt have the preacher pray for me, just stayed where I was and prayed about my leg. That was over 2 years ago. 2 years later, havent had any sort of physical therapy, and havent had any pain since then. Is that considered proof?'

I had a friend that was struggling with her life, and  had a verse she had never seen come to her, James 4:7 come to her in a dream.. first the word James showed up, then the number 4, then 7. That verse was exactly what she needed. A friend just died, and she kept blaming herself. Thought she could have done something to stop it. Why did that verse hit home? Because its talking about submitting to God. Remembering things arent in your control. Is that proof?

Do you require God to come down and reveal himself to you? I have given evidence of different things, although I have no proof of their origin. My conclusion from those is God. What is the line between coincidence and providence?

[smuglapse]

The next time I see an amputee I'll tell them they aren't praying hard enough.

[QuantumT]

And 1000 years ago walking on the moon would be just as unrealistic. Or Tv. Or countless other inventions. What counts one thing out as not being scientifically, possible, while something else is? Have you seen the newest GI Joe Movie? What about nano bots that could eat metal? An invisibility suit that takes pictures of whats behind you and puts it in front? An accelerator suit? Do you consider any of those ideas a plausible idea?

Where do you draw the line?

Generally things that violate causality, ie allow effects to proceed their causes, are a pretty good place to draw the line.

You say god caused it, I respond with what caused god? And what caused what caused god?

God is considered to be there from the beginning. He is ever present. He is the beginning. There doesnt need to be a cause for him.

That's a huge cop out. You can't claim that cause and effect are important then turn around and define god such that cause and effect don't apply.

You haven't proven god to exist, so there is no reason to suppose that he does. It's the same logic that you apply to leprechauns, unicorns, and the loch ness monster. You assume that they don't exist because no one has provided any evidence that they do.

And what would you consider enough "proof" for him to exist. 

Have you ever heard of the "Footprints" poem? I had a time, a very dark time in my life that I was walking down the street, my parents in the behind me, and I felt alone. However, I heard footprints right by me plain as day. Do you consider this proof?

It's a metaphorical poem, so not really.

I went to a doctors and was told if I didnt have physical therapy then I would have chronic joint pain in my knee the rest of my life. The very next week almost, I went to church (as I do every Sunday) and we had a guest speaker. He preached on healing and how it still happens to day, if you just trust God. I am not one to pray for myself, not for physical things at least, however, right there, i trusted God and prayed for my leg, didnt go up or anything, didnt have the preacher pray for me, just stayed where I was and prayed about my leg. That was over 2 years ago. 2 years later, havent had any sort of physical therapy, and havent had any pain since then. Is that considered proof?'

Nope. That's psychosomatics combined with coincidence. One example doesn't prove anything.

Whenever studies are performed that examine faith healing, the results are mixed at best. Generally whenever anyone does manage to get a positive result, their results aren't repeatable. Here (http://healthlibrary.epnet.com/GetContent.aspx?token=a4c1f00b-d245-44f2-a90e-20b047f84a6a&chunkiid=120538) is one of the largest studies ever performed on the subject of faith healing. The result? The people who were prayed for and knew it actually did worse than the other 2 groups. This is probably due to some form of performance anxiety. Point is, prayer wasn't helpful.

I had a friend that was struggling with her life, and  had a verse she had never seen come to her, James 4:7 come to her in a dream.. first the word James showed up, then the number 4, then 7. That verse was exactly what she needed. A friend just died, and she kept blaming herself. Thought she could have done something to stop it. Why did that verse hit home? Because its talking about submitting to God. Remembering things arent in your control. Is that proof?

The subjective feelings of a random person don't count as proof in any sense of the word. Basically all that proves is that humans like having someone to blame.

Do you require God to come down and reveal himself to you? I have given evidence of different things, although I have no proof of their origin. My conclusion from those is God. What is the line between coincidence and providence?

For it to count as evidence, it has to be objective and repeatable, not subjective and anecdotal.

The next time I see an amputee I'll tell them they aren't praying hard enough.

Haven't you heard? God hates amputees.

[BluePriest]

That's a huge cop out. You can't claim that cause and effect are important then turn around and define god such that cause and effect don't apply.

No, you see God IS considered the first cause.  Its not a cop-out. I have the first cause defined in my mind. A first cause is a requirement.

It's a metaphorical poem, so not really.

The poem is metaphorical, the situation that I described is a first hand experience.

Nope. That's psychosomatics combined with coincidence. One example doesn't prove anything.

Id believe psychosomatics if the pain came back. It being the cause for 2 straight years? That not so much.

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous." Albert Einstein

The subjective feelings of a random person don't count as proof in any sense of the word. Basically all that proves is that humans like having someone to blame.

You apparently missed the point. The point was that a verse that she never saw before came to her in a dream on the exact situation that she was struggling with.

For it to count as evidence, it has to be objective and repeatable, not subjective and anecdotal.

And so the big bang is proven to be a big dud by your own testimony. And the origin of life, and many other "theories".

Haven't you heard? God hates amputees.

Do you consider an ear an extremity?

Also another example. I have a friend who was bron without he ability to smell (and therefor taste except for bitterness or sweetness) and has been just randomly gained his sense of smell back. How many coincidences do you need for you to say that maybe there is something to this?

For it to count as evidence, it has to be objective and repeatable, not subjective and anecdotal.

And once again, what would you consider evidence? Give me an example, not a blanket statement.

For fun (since I have known about the whywontgodhealamputees website for several years now....) The most interesting part of this website is that it shows the outright refusal to believe in God. He lists many miracles, but then since God isnt doing 1 certain thing for them, he completely ignores the miracles and never disproves them. All he says is that God doesnt do enough, so why believe in him.

From a post I made years ago when I found that site....

1) Ignorance
2)God Complex

1)Ignorace- How So?

I'll mark several things that he hits on.

The first thing he points out is this.

Steve's Miracle

Even when a prayer doe[/url]s seem to work, it is often shrouded in mystery. For example, in the May, 2004 issue of Guideposts magazine there is a fascinating story about a huge wildfire that swept through San Diego, California. Steve Homel lived in a subdivision engulfed by that fire. Steve prayed and God answered Steve's prayer, so Steve's story offers a glimpse into the way that God works in our world.

Steve saw the fire approaching and it was terrifying -- "an eighty-foot wall of flames rolling down the ridge that overlooks our street." He and his wife evacuated to the home of Steve's grown daughter about 15 miles away. There, as he watched the news on TV, Steve actually saw the flames reaching his neighborhood.

What is the appropriate thing for a person to do in such a situation? As with Neva Rogers, the answer is prayer. Steve, however, decided to take an innovative approach. According to the article: "Suddenly Steve grabbed a piece of paper. 'God bless this house and the firemen who protect it,' he scrawled." Steve then faxed that sheet of paper to the fax machine in his home.

Days later, Steve and his neighbors were allowed to return to their subdivision. What Steve found when he arrived was absolutely amazing. Despite the raging inferno, Steve's house stood completely unscathed. Even the trees in the yard were protected. It was as though there had never been a fire near the neighborhood.

They found Steve's prayer in the tray of his fax machine. The fax machine had received the message, and obviously God did too.

Since Steve prayed and his house survived, believers know what happened. Having heard Steve's prayer, God reached down from heaven into our world and worked a miracle. When God acts on our earth so obviously like this, it is a source of hope, a testimony to God's grace and a shining example of the power of prayer. This story about God's blessings gets written up in magazines and sent to millions of believers: God saved Steve's house!

Immediately following he points this out.

The Mystery in San Diego

Steve's story certainly sounds miraculous. But if we probe into this situation just below the surface, we run into another paradox not unlike Neva Rogers'.

The problem is simple: Every other house on Steve's Street burned to the ground in the fire. According to the article, "The only things standing were a few brick chimneys. The rest had been reduced to ash." The 39 other houses on Steve's street were completely and utterly destroyed.

If God reached down to bless Steve by saving his house, did he not choose to curse Steve's neighbors by letting their homes burn to the ground? Why would a loving, all-powerful God save only one house when it would have been just as easy for him to save all 40? ......

He continues on with what he is talking about, but the point is immeadiatly bought up right there.
He completely ignores the fact that God saved that house, and says that he can not be real (or at least not the God of Christians)because of him suposedly "cursing" the remaining 39 houses. He is completely ignoring the fact that God saved the one person. Its not good enough for him. GOD STILL SAVED SOMEONE, but that one person wasnt good enough and although he cant explain how that one person survived otherwise, he claims it couldnt have been God because the others died.

My second example of ignorance is shown near the end, but Im not going to cut and paste this section.

He later on alks about creation, and even mentions irreducibl complexity, but then mentions how God could not have created us because of the simple fact that theres all these diseases that we are succeptable to. If we were created by an intelligent designer, then we wouldt be so mune to diseases and wouldnt die so easily.

The Big Problem

 The God Complex- This person has a huge god complex. What do I mean by this? I mean he thinks he knows exactly how everthing should be done, and God knows absolutely nothing. The magority of the things he mentions is all things that he is either ignorant of, or he doesnt understand and thinks it should be done differently. He thinks God should have saved all of those people, but God Didnt, Why? I dont know. Guss what though. God does. You know why I think that? I think its because That one person has a testimony that he can hold fast on an witness to thousands of people for.  bt thats just my Guess, I dont claim to Know gods thoughts.

[QuantumT]

That's a huge cop out. You can't claim that cause and effect are important then turn around and define god such that cause and effect don't apply.

No, you see God IS considered the first cause.  Its not a cop-out. I have the first cause defined in my mind. A first cause is a requirement.

You basically just said it yourself. You have god defined as first cause in your mind. Even if a first cause is required, then why can't the universe be considered first cause? Supposing that it's god just leads right back to the infinite regression problem.

The poem is metaphorical, the situation that I described is a first hand experience.

The human mind is fallible. It has a tendency to receive what it's looking for.

Nope. That's psychosomatics combined with coincidence. One example doesn't prove anything.

Id believe psychosomatics if the pain came back. It being the cause for 2 straight years? That not so much.

The placebo effect is very real. And even if it's not the placebo effect, one example doesn't make a case because for every example of it working, there could be hundreds or even thousands for which it doesn't work at all. You don't get to define the random chances as successful prayers and write off the ridiculous number of failures.

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous." Albert Einstein

Einstein was more of an agnostic and a pantheist than a theist, just fyi.

You apparently missed the point. The point was that a verse that she never saw before came to her in a dream on the exact situation that she was struggling with.

Prove that she had never seen it before, never heard it in church, nothing.

For it to count as evidence, it has to be objective and repeatable, not subjective and anecdotal.

And so the big bang is proven to be a big dud by your own testimony. And the origin of life, and many other "theories".

Nope. Anyone else is capable of making the exact same observations and coming to the same conclusion.

Haven't you heard? God hates amputees.

Do you consider an ear an extremity?

Also another example. I have a friend who was bron without he ability to smell (and therefor taste except for bitterness or sweetness) and has been just randomly gained his sense of smell back. How many coincidences do you need for you to say that maybe there is something to this?

Prove that this is somehow connected to prayer. Show that it's more likely to occur for people who pray than for people who don't, in a way that separates it from the placebo effect.

For it to count as evidence, it has to be objective and repeatable, not subjective and anecdotal.

And once again, what would you consider evidence? Give me an example, not a blanket statement.

For fun (since I have known about the whywontgodhealamputees website for several years now....) The most interesting part of this website is that it shows the outright refusal to believe in God. He lists many miracles, but then since God isnt doing 1 certain thing for them, he completely ignores the miracles and never disproves them. All he says is that God doesnt do enough, so why believe in him.

From a post I made years ago when I found that site....

Steve's Miracle

Even when a prayer doe[/url]s seem to work, it is often shrouded in mystery. For example, in the May, 2004 issue of Guideposts magazine there is a fascinating story about a huge wildfire that swept through San Diego, California. Steve Homel lived in a subdivision engulfed by that fire. Steve prayed and God answered Steve's prayer, so Steve's story offers a glimpse into the way that God works in our world.

Steve saw the fire approaching and it was terrifying -- "an eighty-foot wall of flames rolling down the ridge that overlooks our street." He and his wife evacuated to the home of Steve's grown daughter about 15 miles away. There, as he watched the news on TV, Steve actually saw the flames reaching his neighborhood.

What is the appropriate thing for a person to do in such a situation? As with Neva Rogers, the answer is prayer. Steve, however, decided to take an innovative approach. According to the article: "Suddenly Steve grabbed a piece of paper. 'God bless this house and the firemen who protect it,' he scrawled." Steve then faxed that sheet of paper to the fax machine in his home.

Days later, Steve and his neighbors were allowed to return to their subdivision. What Steve found when he arrived was absolutely amazing. Despite the raging inferno, Steve's house stood completely unscathed. Even the trees in the yard were protected. It was as though there had never been a fire near the neighborhood.

They found Steve's prayer in the tray of his fax machine. The fax machine had received the message, and obviously God did too.

Since Steve prayed and his house survived, believers know what happened. Having heard Steve's prayer, God reached down from heaven into our world and worked a miracle. When God acts on our earth so obviously like this, it is a source of hope, a testimony to God's grace and a shining example of the power of prayer. This story about God's blessings gets written up in magazines and sent to millions of believers: God saved Steve's house! [/i]

Immediately following he points this out.

The Mystery in San Diego

Steve's story certainly sounds miraculous. But if we probe into this situation just below the surface, we run into another paradox not unlike Neva Rogers'.

The problem is simple: Every other house on Steve's Street burned to the ground in the fire. According to the article, "The only things standing were a few brick chimneys. The rest had been reduced to ash." The 39 other houses on Steve's street were completely and utterly destroyed.

If God reached down to bless Steve by saving his house, did he not choose to curse Steve's neighbors by letting their homes burn to the ground? Why would a loving, all-powerful God save only one house when it would have been just as easy for him to save all 40? ......
He continues on with what he is talking about, but the point is immeadiatly bought up right there.
He completely ignores the fact that God saved that house, and says that he can not be real (or at least not the God of Christians)because of him suposedly "cursing" the remaining 39 houses. He is completely ignoring the fact that God saved the one person. Its not good enough for him. GOD STILL SAVED SOMEONE, but that one person wasnt good enough and although he cant explain how that one person survived otherwise, he claims it couldnt have been God because the others died.

Luck. Pure and simple. His house was saved by pure luck.

Basically, the end all on prayer is this. Every time things like coincidence are removed from the equation, when the only explanation is that prayers are effective, prayers do nothing. I'll believe in prayer when it is shown to have any provable effect whatsoever.

And I don't like prayer because it encourages inactivity.

Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.
-Anonymous

He later on alks about creation, and even mentions irreducibl complexity, but then mentions how God could not have created us because of the simple fact that theres all these diseases that we are succeptable to. If we were created by an intelligent designer, then we wouldt be so mune to diseases and wouldnt die so easily.

The Big Problem

 The God Complex- This person has a huge god complex. What do I mean by this? I mean he thinks he knows exactly how everthing should be done, and God knows absolutely nothing. The magority of the things he mentions is all things that he is either ignorant of, or he doesnt understand and thinks it should be done differently. He thinks God should have saved all of those people, but God Didnt, Why? I dont know. Guss what though. God does. You know why I think that? I think its because That one person has a testimony that he can hold fast on an witness to thousands of people for.  bt thats just my Guess, I dont claim to Know gods thoughts.

It's not like his arguments are his alone. They're based on the idea that if god does exist, he's kind of a jerk because he intentionally set it up for us to suffer.

Ever notice how incredibly inconsistent the idea that god knows best and prayer are? Either he knows what's best, and prayer is pointless, or he doesn't, and maybe prayer is worthwhile (though statistically, it's worthless).

[BluePriest]

You basically just said it yourself. You have god defined as first cause in your mind. Even if a first cause is required, then why can't the universe be considered first cause? Supposing that it's god just leads right back to the infinite regression problem.

Thats no problem if you want to take that approach. So you are saying that the universe always existed? I just want tto make sure Im understanding what you are saying.

The placebo effect is very real. And even if it's not the placebo effect, one example doesn't make a case because for every example of it working, there could be hundreds or even thousands for which it doesn't work at all. You don't get to define the random chances as successful prayers and write off the ridiculous number of failures.

And so 1/1 is a ridiculous amount of failures? i dont make a habit of praying for myself unless its for strength. And I dont make a habit of ignoring things and just saying God will fix it. Perhaps if I prayed countless other prayers for myself, then i would agree with your stance, however, since that was the first, and last, I have a tendency to doubt.

Einstein was more of an agnostic and a pantheist than a theist, just fyi.

And that changes the fact that he said it? Just making sure

Prove that she had never seen it before, never heard it in church, nothing.

And if I did, would that change your mind?

Prove that this is somehow connected to prayer. Show that it's more likely to occur for people who pray than for people who don't, in a way that separates it from the placebo effect.

Very well, I will get the persons personal testimony, he is a good friend of mine.  And man, if thats the placebo effect, i wonder if I can fly if I will it enough.

Luck. Pure and simple. His house was saved by pure luck.

and what about the many other examples he gives on his site. The easiest place to look for miracles is an atheist website. They will list them off for you and then say how God should have done more. But it doesnt change the fact that they are miracles.

Ever notice how incredibly inconsistent the idea that god knows best and prayer are? Either he knows what's best, and prayer is pointless, or he doesn't, and maybe prayer is worthwhile (though statistically, it's worthless).

Ever notice how people that actually know the bible seem to think your arguments are pointless? Is it because we were brainwashed? Or maybe because we actually know what we are talking about. Goes back to ratcharmers "It sounds ridiculous" argument.

Dont have time to post more, will when i get back from work in 6 hours and will continue.

ps do you consider an ear an extremity. Still waiting for an answer. And waiting for an answer on which of these you think it possible and which arent.

Have you seen the newest GI Joe Movie? What about nano bots that could eat metal? An invisibility suit that takes pictures of whats behind you and puts it in front? An accelerator suit? Do you consider any of those ideas a plausible idea

?

[QuantumT]

Thats no problem if you want to take that approach. So you are saying that the universe always existed? I just want tto make sure Im understanding what you are saying.

I'm saying that if you require the universe to have a cause, then I'm going to say that the cause also requires a cause, and that cause also requires a cause, etc. Once you decide that the universe by itself isn't good enough, there's no reason to stop at just one step back.

And so 1/1 is a ridiculous amount of failures? i dont make a habit of praying for myself unless its for strength. And I dont make a habit of ignoring things and just saying God will fix it. Perhaps if I prayed countless other prayers for myself, then i would agree with your stance, however, since that was the first, and last, I have a tendency to doubt.

You still haven't separated it from the placebo effect, and even if you had, coincidences happen. If you want to prove that prayer is effective, you'll have to do it with statistics, not anecdotes.

And that changes the fact that he said it? Just making sure

I'm just tired of Einstein being misquoted as some sort of huge christian. If it's just the words themselves that you wanted, then fine.

Prove that she had never seen it before, never heard it in church, nothing.

And if I did, would that change your mind?

It would, but to be fair, it will be basically impossible for you to prove it in this case, because the number of possible ways she could have heard it are enormous.

Very well, I will get the persons personal testimony, he is a good friend of mine.  And man, if thats the placebo effect, i wonder if I can fly if I will it enough.

Like I said before, prove it with statistics, not anecdotes.

and what about the many other examples he gives on his site. The easiest place to look for miracles is an atheist website. They will list them off for you and then say how God should have done more. But it doesnt change the fact that they are miracles.

No they aren't. The few times when things do happen to line up with prayers are merely coincidence. If you were to catalog all the times that prayer failed alongside the few times it was successful, you would see the power of coincidence. Let me show this with an example.

There was a university campus (I can't remember which right now) where 1000 students were gathered and given coins. They were told to try and flip as many heads in a row as they could, when they flipped a tails they were out. At the beginning, the students just flipped the coins without much concern, but by the time the students that were still in had flipped 5-6 heads in a row the attitude had changed. They were focused intensely on the coin flip, they were sweating profusely, like they had some sort of power over the outcome, completely ignorant of the fact that every time they went through another toss, roughly half of them flipped tails and were out, exactly in line with the laws of probability. The ones that did better didn't actually have any innate ability that allowed them to flip coins, they were simply lucky.

The point is, that even when the chances for something to occur are low, they're still not zero. And the studies performed on prayer work out exactly the same way. Regardless of whether it's prayed for or not, when the sample size is large enough, praying or not praying has no effect.

Ever notice how people that actually know the bible seem to think your arguments are pointless? Is it because we were brainwashed? Or maybe because we actually know what we are talking about. Goes back to ratcharmers "It sounds ridiculous" argument.

It's not that it sounds ridiculous (though it does), it's that it's logically inconsistent. Either god knows best and he's going to do it without any input from me, or prayer has an effect and god isn't all knowing. The two ideas are mutually exclusive.

ps do you consider an ear an extremity. Still waiting for an answer. And waiting for an answer on which of these you think it possible and which arent.

I suppose, but let's make it an arm or a leg for purposes of this. After all, god should hear their prayers too right?

Have you seen the newest GI Joe Movie? What about nano bots that could eat metal? An invisibility suit that takes pictures of whats behind you and puts it in front? An accelerator suit? Do you consider any of those ideas a plausible idea

?

They might be possible in some form, I don't know. What I do know is that what's going to lead to them is a scientific approach, not a superstitious one.

[BluePriest]

I'm saying that if you require the universe to have a cause, then I'm going to say that the cause also requires a cause, and that cause also requires a cause, etc. Once you decide that the universe by itself isn't good enough, there's no reason to stop at just one step back.

So give me something in the world that does not have a cause. spontaneous generation of things isnt exactly scientific. Things require an initial cause.

I'm just tired of Einstein being misquoted as some sort of huge christian. If it's just the words themselves that you wanted, then fine.

This isnt the place for a conversation for einstiens beliefs. Some people swear up and down hes a christian, others say he is an atheist, it makes no difference to me.

No they aren't. The few times when things do happen to line up with prayers are merely coincidence. If you were to catalog all the times that prayer failed alongside the few times it was successful, you would see the power of coincidence. Let me show this with an example.

You seem to have missed what I was talking about.

What Im not talking about.
Other people.

What I am talking about, the 1 time I prayed for myself. I am saying that one time the prayer worked. Im going to get a little spiritual here but bear with me.

I am not sure of other peoples ideas of prayers, however, I do know what I believe. I believe in the power of the holy spirit. I do not pray for healing for anyone, including myself, unless I feel the holy spirit leading me to do so. I will tell you every single time I have prayed for something whether it be for physical, or emotional healing, it has happened. Why do I think prayer fails for many people? Because, they are praying to pray. I dont doubt that a large sum of prayers being answered are coincidences, as you like pointing out, you are bound to be right eventually. I could claim im telepathic by tellign every person I pass to drop their books. Im bound to be right eventually. You have to look at the reason you are praying. Is it because you are testing God? It wont be answered. Is it because you just feel like it? It wont be answered. Is it because you really want it to happen? It wont be answered. God answers prayers of the righteous. God will examine our heart.

I suppose, but let's make it an arm or a leg for purposes of this. After all, god should hear their prayers too right

So you do consider an ear an extremity, therefor one being cut off would be considered an amputation, and Jesus reattached an ear in the bible. Your response. The bible isnt fact. Im just pointing that out though.  you are able to use the bible for why the bible doesnt exist, and I am doing the exact thing to show that it does in fact exist.

Also Do you really want to talk about having no evidence? The person on that site has no evidence for any of his "facts". He says that if you have someone pray over an amputee who honestly believes in God and has that persons best interest i mind, they will still not be healed. however, he doesnt actually try it. He just assumes it. I almost want to start a new topic just about that website as to not get to sidetracked from the topic.

And the studies performed on prayer work out exactly the same way. Regardless of whether it's prayed for or not, when the sample size is large enough, praying or not praying has no effect.

Show me the evidence.

It's not that it sounds ridiculous (though it does), it's that it's logically inconsistent. Either god knows best and he's going to do it without any input from me, or prayer has an effect and god isn't all knowing. The two ideas are mutually exclusive

This is what I wanted to post more on but ran out of time. They actually are not mutually exclusive. For my example, I will use my leg.
You are assuming that either
a)God was going to just heal my leg and it didnt matter If i prayed or not,
b)My leg was healed because I prayed, and God isnt all knowing due to that.

This is what I believe though
 I do not believe my leg would have been healed if I didnt pray. Since I did pray, God rewarded my faith by healing my leg, however, If I didnt pray, nothing would have happened. God required me following his spirit and praying for my leg, and since I took that leap of faith I was rewarded.  So you see, they are far from mutually exclusive.

Many peoples prayers are self righteous and have no concern for gods glory.  So they arent answered. I find that people that earnestly seek God and pray without ceasing as commanded in the bible are the ones to have their prayers answered.

Also, one final reference to God healing amputees before I end this post.

Copied this from a website. I believe it's a thorough answer to the question

Why won't God heal amputees?



Question: "Why won't God heal amputees?"


Answer: Some use this question in an attempt to "disprove" the existence of God. In fact, there is a popular anti-Christian website dedicated to the “Why won’t God heal amputees?” argument: http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/). If God is all-powerful and if Jesus promised to do anything we ask (or so the reasoning goes), then why won’t God ever heal amputees when we pray for them? Why does God heal victims of cancer and diabetes, for example, yet He never causes an amputated limb to be regenerated? The fact that an amputee stays an amputee is "proof" to some that God does not exist, that prayer is useless, that so-called healings are coincidence, and that religion is a myth.


The above argument is usually presented in a thoughtful, well-reasoned way, with a liberal sprinkling of Scripture to make it seem all the more legitimate. However, it is an argument based on a wrong view of God and a misrepresentation of Scripture. The line of reasoning employed in the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument makes at least seven false assumptions:


Assumption 1: God has never healed an amputee. Who is to say that in the history of the world, God has never caused a limb to regenerate? To say, "I have no empirical evidence that limbs can regenerate; therefore, no amputee has ever been healed in the history of the world" is akin to saying "I have no empirical evidence that rabbits live in my yard; therefore, no rabbit has ever lived on this ground in the history of the world." It’s a conclusion that simply cannot be drawn. Besides, we have the historical record of Jesus healing lepers, some of whom we may assume had lost digits or facial features. In each case, the lepers were restored whole (Mark 1:40-42 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Mark%201.40-42); Luke 17:12-14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2017.12-14)). Also, there is the case of the man with the shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9-13 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2012.9-13)), and the restoration of Malchus's severed ear (Luke 22:50-51 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2022.50-51)), not to mention the fact that Jesus raised the dead (Matthew 11:5 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2011.5); John 11), which would undeniably be even more difficult than healing an amputee.


Assumption 2: God’s goodness and love require Him to heal everyone. Illness, suffering, and pain are the result of our living in a cursed world—cursed because of our sin (Genesis 3:16-19 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Genesis%203.16-19); Romans 8:20-22 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.20-22)). God’s goodness and love moved Him to provide a Savior to redeem us from the curse (1 John 4:9-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20John%204.9-10)), but our ultimate redemption will not be realized until God has made a final end of sin in the world. Until that time, we are still subject to physical death.


If God’s love required Him to heal every disease and infirmity, then no one would ever die—because "love" would maintain everyone in perfect health. The biblical definition of love is "a sacrificial seeking what is best for the loved one." What is best for us is not always physical wholeness. Paul the apostle prayed to have his "thorn in the flesh" removed, but God said, "No" because He wanted Paul to understand he didn’t need to be physically whole to experience the sustaining grace of God. Through the experience, Paul grew in humility and in the understanding of God’s mercy and power (2 Corinthians 12:7-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Corinthians%2012.7-10)).


The testimony of Joni Eareckson Tada provides a modern example of what God can do through physical tragedy. As a teenager, Joni suffered a diving accident that left her a quadriplegic. In her book Joni, she relates how she visited faith healers many times and prayed desperately for the healing which never came. Finally, she accepted her condition as God’s will, and she writes, "The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that God doesn’t want everyone well. He uses our problems for His glory and our good" (p. 190).


Assumption 3: God still performs miracles today just as He did in the past. In the thousands of years of history covered by the Bible, we find just four short periods in which miracles were widely performed (the period of the Exodus, the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, the ministry of Jesus, and the time of the apostles). While miracles occurred throughout the Bible, it was only during these four periods that miracles were "common."


The time of the apostles ended with the writing of Revelation and the death of John. That means that now, once again, miracles are rare. Any ministry which claims to be led by a new breed of apostle or claims to possess the ability to heal is deceiving people. "Faith healers" play upon emotion and use the power of suggestion to produce unverifiable "healings." This is not to say that God does not heal people today—we believe He does—but not in the numbers or in the way that some people claim.


We turn again to the story of Joni Eareckson Tada, who at one time sought the help of faith healers. On the subject of modern-day miracles, she says, "Man’s dealing with God in our day and culture is based on His Word rather than ‘signs and wonders’" (op cit., p. 190). His grace is sufficient, and His Word is sure.


Assumption 4: God is bound to say "yes" to any prayer offered in faith. Jesus said, "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" (John 14:12-14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2014.12-14)). Some have tried to interpret this passage as a carte blanche from Jesus promising His agreement to whatever we ask. But this is misreading Jesus’ intent. Notice, first, that Jesus is speaking to His apostles, and the promise is for them. After Jesus’ ascension, the apostles were given power to perform miracles as they spread the gospel (Acts 5:12 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Acts%205.12)). Second, Jesus twice uses the phrase "in My name." This indicates the basis for the apostles’ prayers, but it also implies that whatever they prayed for should be consonant with Jesus’ will. A selfish prayer, for example, or one motivated by greed, cannot be said to be prayed in Jesus’ name.


We pray in faith, but faith means that we trust God. We trust Him to do what is best and to know what is best. When we consider all the Bible’s teaching on prayer (not just the promise given to the apostles), we learn that God may exercise His power in response to our prayer, or He may surprise us with a different course of action. In His wisdom He always does what is best (Romans 8:28 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.28)).


Assumption 5: God’s future healing (at the resurrection) cannot compensate for earthly suffering. The truth is, "our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.18)). When a believer loses a limb, he has God’s promise of future wholeness, and faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:4 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Hebrews%2011.4)). Jesus said, "It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire" (Matthew 18:8 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2018.8)). His words confirm the relative unimportance of our physical condition in this world, as compared to our eternal state. To enter life maimed (and then to be made whole) is infinitely better than to enter hell whole (to suffer for eternity).


Assumption 6: God’s plan is subject to man’s approval. One of the contentions of the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument is that God just isn’t "fair" to amputees. Yet, Scripture is clear that God is perfectly just (Psalm 11:7 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Psalm%2011.7); 2 Thessalonians 1:5-6 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Thessalonians%201.5-6)) and in His sovereignty answers to no one (Romans 9:20-21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%209.20-21)). A believer has faith in God’s goodness, even when circumstances make it difficult and reason seems to falter.


Assumption 7: God does not exist. This is the underlying assumption on which the whole "why won’t God heal amputees" argument is based. Those who champion the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument start with the assumption that God does not exist and then proceed to buttress their idea as best they can. For them, "religion is a myth" is a foregone conclusion, presented as a logical deduction but which is, in reality, foundational to the argument.


In one sense, the question of why God doesn’t heal amputees is a "gotcha" question, comparable to "Can God make a rock too big for Him to lift?" and is designed not to seek for truth but to discredit faith. In another sense, it can be a valid question with a biblical answer. That answer, in short, would be something like this: "God can heal amputees and will heal every one of them who trusts Christ as Savior. The healing will come, not as the result of our demanding it now, but in God’s own time, possibly in this life, but definitely in Heaven. Until that time, we walk by faith, trusting the God who redeems us in Christ and promises the resurrection of the body."

EDIT
Honestly thats the last of that site that I am going to reference regardless of if you continue talking about it or not though. The way I see it, all that site does is make Atheists grin in delight of finding more "proof" and Christians just sorta look and wonder "Are you really that ignorant?" Its an Atheist site for Atheists, and has no real ground to be a rebuttle of any belief. If you think its important enough to make a new topic for it, go for it. I will rain down many different amputee stories that you will write off as stories, and we will have fun going in circles. Answers in Genises puts it in a good way.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/01/30/feedback-god-heal-amputees
No, they never really answered the question. why? Because they werent looking for an answer. They were trying to be clever. All AiG did is show they werent being clever.

As for if prayer works or not, Im afraid I will have to take the same approach there as well. No matter what I show you, it will simply be marked off as either a placebo effect, or if its impossible to be marked off as that, then a coincidence. I could show many different healings, however, I do not feel like being told they are just stories or coincidences.  It is a waste of both our times.

The bible talks of casting pearls to swine, and I feel that is all that is being done here.

[QuantumT]

I'm saying that if you require the universe to have a cause, then I'm going to say that the cause also requires a cause, and that cause also requires a cause, etc. Once you decide that the universe by itself isn't good enough, there's no reason to stop at just one step back.

So give me something in the world that does not have a cause. spontaneous generation of things isnt exactly scientific. Things require an initial cause.

Infinite regressions are useless. The viewpoint that I don't currently understand how the universe currently started is better than a pointless infinite regression though.

This isnt the place for a conversation for einstiens beliefs. Some people swear up and down hes a christian, others say he is an atheist, it makes no difference to me.

I figure Einstein claiming to be agnostic is probably a reasonable indicator of Einstein being agnostic.

What I am talking about, the 1 time I prayed for myself. I am saying that one time the prayer worked. Im going to get a little spiritual here but bear with me.

I am not sure of other peoples ideas of prayers, however, I do know what I believe. I believe in the power of the holy spirit. I do not pray for healing for anyone, including myself, unless I feel the holy spirit leading me to do so. I will tell you every single time I have prayed for something whether it be for physical, or emotional healing, it has happened. Why do I think prayer fails for many people? Because, they are praying to pray. I dont doubt that a large sum of prayers being answered are coincidences, as you like pointing out, you are bound to be right eventually. I could claim im telepathic by tellign every person I pass to drop their books. Im bound to be right eventually. You have to look at the reason you are praying. Is it because you are testing God? It wont be answered. Is it because you just feel like it? It wont be answered. Is it because you really want it to happen? It wont be answered. God answers prayers of the righteous. God will examine our heart.

One data point isn't enough to make any statistically valid conclusions.

So when will it be effective? When it's exactly what statistically would have happened anyway?

So you do consider an ear an extremity, therefor one being cut off would be considered an amputation, and Jesus reattached an ear in the bible. Your response. The bible isnt fact. Im just pointing that out though.  you are able to use the bible for why the bible doesnt exist, and I am doing the exact thing to show that it does in fact exist.

The bible isn't fact and nothing it claims can be used as hard evidence of anything. It is provably wrong in many cases, and can't be taken as a reliable source.

Also Do you really want to talk about having no evidence? The person on that site has no evidence for any of his "facts". He says that if you have someone pray over an amputee who honestly believes in God and has that persons best interest i mind, they will still not be healed. however, he doesnt actually try it. He just assumes it. I almost want to start a new topic just about that website as to not get to sidetracked from the topic.

He doesn't do what you claim because he can't. He doesn't believe in god so it's impossible for him to do it. I encourage you to perform the experiment though. Get everyone in your church to pray for an amputee to spontaneously generate their limb, and see what happens.

And the studies performed on prayer work out exactly the same way. Regardless of whether it's prayed for or not, when the sample size is large enough, praying or not praying has no effect.

Show me the evidence.

Study on heart patients (http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703%2805%2900649-6/abstract)

This is what I wanted to post more on but ran out of time. They actually are not mutually exclusive. For my example, I will use my leg.
You are assuming that either
a)God was going to just heal my leg and it didnt matter If i prayed or not,
b)My leg was healed because I prayed, and God isnt all knowing due to that.

This is what I believe though
 I do not believe my leg would have been healed if I didnt pray. Since I did pray, God rewarded my faith by healing my leg, however, If I didnt pray, nothing would have happened. God required me following his spirit and praying for my leg, and since I took that leap of faith I was rewarded.  So you see, they are far from mutually exclusive.

Many peoples prayers are self righteous and have no concern for gods glory.  So they arent answered. I find that people that earnestly seek God and pray without ceasing as commanded in the bible are the ones to have their prayers answered.

So basically this end's up working out to
A) Your prayer is answered, and your faith is being rewarded.
B) Your prayer isn't answered, and your prayer must have been self-righteous and have no concern for god's glory.

It's setup that regardless of the result, you can't be wrong.

Also, one final reference to God healing amputees before I end this post.

Copied this from a website. I believe it's a thorough answer to the question

Why won't God heal amputees?



Question: "Why won't God heal amputees?"


Answer: Some use this question in an attempt to "disprove" the existence of God. In fact, there is a popular anti-Christian website dedicated to the “Why won’t God heal amputees?” argument: http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com (http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/). If God is all-powerful and if Jesus promised to do anything we ask (or so the reasoning goes), then why won’t God ever heal amputees when we pray for them? Why does God heal victims of cancer and diabetes, for example, yet He never causes an amputated limb to be regenerated? The fact that an amputee stays an amputee is "proof" to some that God does not exist, that prayer is useless, that so-called healings are coincidence, and that religion is a myth.


The above argument is usually presented in a thoughtful, well-reasoned way, with a liberal sprinkling of Scripture to make it seem all the more legitimate. However, it is an argument based on a wrong view of God and a misrepresentation of Scripture. The line of reasoning employed in the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument makes at least seven false assumptions:


Assumption 1: God has never healed an amputee. Who is to say that in the history of the world, God has never caused a limb to regenerate? To say, "I have no empirical evidence that limbs can regenerate; therefore, no amputee has ever been healed in the history of the world" is akin to saying "I have no empirical evidence that rabbits live in my yard; therefore, no rabbit has ever lived on this ground in the history of the world." It’s a conclusion that simply cannot be drawn. Besides, we have the historical record of Jesus healing lepers, some of whom we may assume had lost digits or facial features. In each case, the lepers were restored whole (Mark 1:40-42 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Mark%201.40-42); Luke 17:12-14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2017.12-14)). Also, there is the case of the man with the shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9-13 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2012.9-13)), and the restoration of Malchus's severed ear (Luke 22:50-51 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Luke%2022.50-51)), not to mention the fact that Jesus raised the dead (Matthew 11:5 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2011.5); John 11), which would undeniably be even more difficult than healing an amputee.


Assumption 2: God’s goodness and love require Him to heal everyone. Illness, suffering, and pain are the result of our living in a cursed world—cursed because of our sin (Genesis 3:16-19 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Genesis%203.16-19); Romans 8:20-22 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.20-22)). God’s goodness and love moved Him to provide a Savior to redeem us from the curse (1 John 4:9-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20John%204.9-10)), but our ultimate redemption will not be realized until God has made a final end of sin in the world. Until that time, we are still subject to physical death.


If God’s love required Him to heal every disease and infirmity, then no one would ever die—because "love" would maintain everyone in perfect health. The biblical definition of love is "a sacrificial seeking what is best for the loved one." What is best for us is not always physical wholeness. Paul the apostle prayed to have his "thorn in the flesh" removed, but God said, "No" because He wanted Paul to understand he didn’t need to be physically whole to experience the sustaining grace of God. Through the experience, Paul grew in humility and in the understanding of God’s mercy and power (2 Corinthians 12:7-10 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Corinthians%2012.7-10)).


The testimony of Joni Eareckson Tada provides a modern example of what God can do through physical tragedy. As a teenager, Joni suffered a diving accident that left her a quadriplegic. In her book Joni, she relates how she visited faith healers many times and prayed desperately for the healing which never came. Finally, she accepted her condition as God’s will, and she writes, "The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that God doesn’t want everyone well. He uses our problems for His glory and our good" (p. 190).


Assumption 3: God still performs miracles today just as He did in the past. In the thousands of years of history covered by the Bible, we find just four short periods in which miracles were widely performed (the period of the Exodus, the time of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, the ministry of Jesus, and the time of the apostles). While miracles occurred throughout the Bible, it was only during these four periods that miracles were "common."


The time of the apostles ended with the writing of Revelation and the death of John. That means that now, once again, miracles are rare. Any ministry which claims to be led by a new breed of apostle or claims to possess the ability to heal is deceiving people. "Faith healers" play upon emotion and use the power of suggestion to produce unverifiable "healings." This is not to say that God does not heal people today—we believe He does—but not in the numbers or in the way that some people claim.


We turn again to the story of Joni Eareckson Tada, who at one time sought the help of faith healers. On the subject of modern-day miracles, she says, "Man’s dealing with God in our day and culture is based on His Word rather than ‘signs and wonders’" (op cit., p. 190). His grace is sufficient, and His Word is sure.


Assumption 4: God is bound to say "yes" to any prayer offered in faith. Jesus said, "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" (John 14:12-14 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/John%2014.12-14)). Some have tried to interpret this passage as a carte blanche from Jesus promising His agreement to whatever we ask. But this is misreading Jesus’ intent. Notice, first, that Jesus is speaking to His apostles, and the promise is for them. After Jesus’ ascension, the apostles were given power to perform miracles as they spread the gospel (Acts 5:12 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Acts%205.12)). Second, Jesus twice uses the phrase "in My name." This indicates the basis for the apostles’ prayers, but it also implies that whatever they prayed for should be consonant with Jesus’ will. A selfish prayer, for example, or one motivated by greed, cannot be said to be prayed in Jesus’ name.


We pray in faith, but faith means that we trust God. We trust Him to do what is best and to know what is best. When we consider all the Bible’s teaching on prayer (not just the promise given to the apostles), we learn that God may exercise His power in response to our prayer, or He may surprise us with a different course of action. In His wisdom He always does what is best (Romans 8:28 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.28)).


Assumption 5: God’s future healing (at the resurrection) cannot compensate for earthly suffering. The truth is, "our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us" (Romans 8:18 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%208.18)). When a believer loses a limb, he has God’s promise of future wholeness, and faith is "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:4 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Hebrews%2011.4)). Jesus said, "It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire" (Matthew 18:8 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Matthew%2018.8)). His words confirm the relative unimportance of our physical condition in this world, as compared to our eternal state. To enter life maimed (and then to be made whole) is infinitely better than to enter hell whole (to suffer for eternity).


Assumption 6: God’s plan is subject to man’s approval. One of the contentions of the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument is that God just isn’t "fair" to amputees. Yet, Scripture is clear that God is perfectly just (Psalm 11:7 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Psalm%2011.7); 2 Thessalonians 1:5-6 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/2%20Thessalonians%201.5-6)) and in His sovereignty answers to no one (Romans 9:20-21 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/Romans%209.20-21)). A believer has faith in God’s goodness, even when circumstances make it difficult and reason seems to falter.


Assumption 7: God does not exist. This is the underlying assumption on which the whole "why won’t God heal amputees" argument is based. Those who champion the "why won’t God heal amputees" argument start with the assumption that God does not exist and then proceed to buttress their idea as best they can. For them, "religion is a myth" is a foregone conclusion, presented as a logical deduction but which is, in reality, foundational to the argument.


In one sense, the question of why God doesn’t heal amputees is a "gotcha" question, comparable to "Can God make a rock too big for Him to lift?" and is designed not to seek for truth but to discredit faith. In another sense, it can be a valid question with a biblical answer. That answer, in short, would be something like this: "God can heal amputees and will heal every one of them who trusts Christ as Savior. The healing will come, not as the result of our demanding it now, but in God’s own time, possibly in this life, but definitely in Heaven. Until that time, we walk by faith, trusting the God who redeems us in Christ and promises the resurrection of the body."

Assumption 1: The analogy is false. Rabbits tend to do things like live in the ground, so the supposition that rabbits live in my yard is reasonable. Limbs don't spontaneously regenerate, so the supposition that it hasn't happened is reasonable, just like the supposition that things have never "fallen up" etc.

Additionally, bible is fallible. It can't be taken to be a factual resource on anything.

Assumption 2: Yet it's claimed that he helps sometimes in the cases of other medical problems. Why never in amputees?

Also, the idea that "suffering is good for me" is ludicrous. It wouldn't fly for any person, and it won't fly for god.

Assumption 3: Seems like an odd coincidence that miracles stopped being performed as soon as the average person became intelligent enough to know the difference. In all the other periods that miracles were performed, the average person was completely illiterate, probably couldn't do any math beyond the most rudimentary arithmetic, and most likely never traveled more than 50 miles from the place they were born. How hard would it be to convince such a person they had seen a miracle?

Assumption 4: This is the catchall I mentioned above. Either god answers my prayer and my prayer was answered, or he doesn't because it "isn't his will." You can't be proven wrong.

Assumption 5: The receipt of future retribution for current payment sounds like something a con artist would do.

Assumption 6: You can't use the definition that god is just as justification that god is just. It's the worst circular argument I've ever seen.

Assumption 7: It's not taken as a given. If god exists, and if praying to him is effective, then some amputee should at some point regenerate a limb.

It's not really a gotcha question. God has clearly shown that it's possible for things to regenerate lost limbs, as it's something that salamanders and starfish can do, presumably without praying at all. Why can't the truly faithful ever do it? The answer will never come in this life, and no one has proved that the next one exists at all, so I'm not accepting payment in that one.

The other question though does show that the idea of omnipotence is logically impossible.

As for if prayer works or not, Im afraid I will have to take the same approach there as well. No matter what I show you, it will simply be marked off as either a placebo effect, or if its impossible to be marked off as that, then a coincidence. I could show many different healings, however, I do not feel like being told they are just stories or coincidences.  It is a waste of both our times.

Claims of the placebo effect can be taken out when properly performed studies are done (just like they are for medicine). Claims of coincidence can be gotten rid of when the sample size is large enough to average out coincidences.

[BluePriest]

Censoring out everything that doesnt have to do with Eisensteins world view which has no point, and the 2 subjects I already mentioned I would stop referring to unless they are in a dedicated topic (Ill be honest and say I didnt even read it)... We are left with

Infinite regressions are useless. The viewpoint that I don't currently understand how the universe currently started is better than a pointless infinite regression though.

note the rest of this post, when I say beginning I mean the beginning of infinity/something being ever-present
Im not talking about infinite regression. We can assume that time in a metaphorical sense of "moments that pass"  exists, and has always existed. So we have time represented by a dashed line (-----). now in order for there to be a first cause, soemthing had to have always existed. Otherwise spontaneous generation is a real thing. now a solid line (___) represents whatever existed with time in the beginning. There has to be something always there in the beginning. That would look like this.


---------------------
_____________

That solid line has to always either
A)Exist in its current form or
B)Exist in another form. (Perhaps it changed into something else due to its makeup that had always existed)

It would be quite a leap of faith to say the beginning was like this.

----------------------
               ______
With something suddenly appearing. There had to be something in the beginning. Infinite regression really has no realistic application because it would require the first example (Which would have time as a first cause which cant act on nothing and cause something)

[QuantumT]

It's infinite regression because you claim the universe needs a cause, and that cause is god. I just ask you what caused god? And what caused what caused god? And what caused what caused what caused god? A what caused what caused what caused what caused god?

It goes on forever. One step is a much more satisfactory number than two, because two has all the problems that one has, and it also has this infinite regression problem.

The other reason I don't like it is because it discourages further investigation into the matter. If we'd always just been willing to call whatever we didn't understand god, then we'd still be in the stone ages. It's only by admitting ignorance that progress is made.

What would it take to prove to you that there is no god? Then I'll at least know what I have to work with.

[BluePriest]

It's infinite regression because you claim the universe needs a cause, and that cause is god. I just ask you what caused god? And what caused what caused god? And what caused what caused what caused god? A what caused what caused what caused what caused god?

It goes on forever. One step is a much more satisfactory number than two, because two has all the problems that one has, and it also has this infinite regression problem.

The other reason I don't like it is because it discourages further investigation into the matter. If we'd always just been willing to call whatever we didn't understand god, then we'd still be in the stone ages. It's only by admitting ignorance that progress is made.

What would it take to prove to you that there is no god? Then I'll at least know what I have to work with.

You seem to still be missing my point. Either that or you just completely ignored my point.  Im once again stating that I am NOT talking about infinite regression. God doesnt need a cause because he always was and always is and always will be.  What I am asking you is what is it that "always was" from your point of view or at least what is the generally accepted scientific take on it?