How does prayer work?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: the2ofusr1 Maybe a better example might be like those picture things that you stare at to see a picture emerge .I have friends that can do it but I cant seem to make it work and no matter which way they describe to me how to do it ,I just don't get it . Trying how to describe the hows and whys of a thing like prayer is the same as those pictures .Some people get it and others don't .....prayer ....some people get it and some people don't...

And the proof to me that those pictures do what they do is because other people say they do .I have to trust other people that say its so . Yes faith is a kind of complicated thing where the view is much much different from the outside .

Again, you are comparing prayer to something very physical. You will need to find something non physical to compare it too if that is the path you want to use.

a reply to: Woodcarver

You will need to find something non physical to compare it too

How about a persons imagination .Is that not none physical enough for you .Using those pictures that don't work on me but do on others is a good example .Do those people some how imagine something that is real or is it me that may not have the imagination to do so ?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Woodcarver

You will need to find something non physical to compare it too

How about a persons imagination .Is that not none physical enough for you .Using those pictures that don't work on me but do on others is a good example .Do those people some how imagine something that is real or is it me that may not have the imagination to do so ?

Our thoughts are the product of electrical signals passing through neurons in our brain. It is a well understood physical process. Did you even bother to look this up before you posted it?

WHAT ARE THOUGHTS MADE OF?
They’re really just electro-chemical reactions—but the number and complexity of these reactions make them hard to fully understand…


The human brain is composed of about 100 billion nerve cells (neurons) interconnected by trillions of connections, called synapses. On average, each connection transmits about one signal per second. Some specialized connections send up to 1,000 signals per second. “Somehow… that’s producing thought,” says Charles Jennings, director of neurotechnology at the MIT McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

engineering.mit.edu...

Thoughts are very much a physical process.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Woodcarver

You will need to find something non physical to compare it too

How about a persons imagination .Is that not none physical enough for you .Using those pictures that don't work on me but do on others is a good example .Do those people some how imagine something that is real or is it me that may not have the imagination to do so ?

people who can't see the magic eye pictures have an impairment of their binocular function of their eyes.

Most Magic Eye problems have to do with the way the eyes work with each other and the brain. To view 3D stereo images, your peepers have to work together as a coordinated team. If they're not pulling together, you're going to have some glitches in your binocular (two-eyed) vision or stereo vision (where the two slightly different views from your eyes are combined in the brain). A number of things can cause binocular and stereo vision impairment — most commonly, deviations or misalignments of one or both eyes ("crossed eyes" or "wall eyes"), situations where one eye is dominant because visual stimulation either transmits poorly or not at all from the other, astigmatism or cataracts. If you think you have an eye problem, go see an eye doctor who can test and treat your stereo vision. - See more at: m.mentalfloss.com...

m.mentalfloss.com...

Anything else you are too lazy to educate yourself on?

a reply to: Woodcarver

Imagine for a moment that you wanted to as a question about something you couldn't see feel touch or hear .Those are our senses most are familiar with .Do we have any other senses ? ...good questions are hard to come by and answers may be even harder to imagine or think about . Try this on for size

When someone mentions “different dimensions,” we tend to think of things like parallel universes – alternate realities that exist parallel to our own, but where things work or happened differently. However, the reality of dimensions and how they play a role in the ordering of our Universe is really quite different from this popular characterization. To break it down, dimensions are simply the different facets of what we perceive to be reality. We are immediately aware of the three dimensions that surround us on a daily basis – those that define the length, width, and depth of all objects in our universes (the x, y, and z axes, respectively). Beyond these three visible dimensions, scientists believe that there may be many more. In fact, the theoretical framework of Superstring Theory posits that the universe exists in ten different dimensions. These different aspects are what govern the universe, the fundamental forces of nature, and all the elementary particles contained within.

Now why would these scientist believe such nonsense ? Is it ,or could it be true ? Maybe it's that circle of scientist that know or could know the answer to your question .They have at least a imagination ,and are not afraid to ask and pose a answer . www.universetoday.com...
anything else you may have ignorantly not thought of

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Woodcarver

Imagine for a moment that you wanted to as a question about something you couldn't see feel touch or hear .Those are our senses most are familiar with .Do we have any other senses ? ...good questions are hard to come by and answers may be even harder to imagine or think about . Try this on for size

When someone mentions “different dimensions,” we tend to think of things like parallel universes – alternate realities that exist parallel to our own, but where things work or happened differently. However, the reality of dimensions and how they play a role in the ordering of our Universe is really quite different from this popular characterization. To break it down, dimensions are simply the different facets of what we perceive to be reality. We are immediately aware of the three dimensions that surround us on a daily basis – those that define the length, width, and depth of all objects in our universes (the x, y, and z axes, respectively). Beyond these three visible dimensions, scientists believe that there may be many more. In fact, the theoretical framework of Superstring Theory posits that the universe exists in ten different dimensions. These different aspects are what govern the universe, the fundamental forces of nature, and all the elementary particles contained within.

Now why would these scientist believe such nonsense ? Is it ,or could it be true ? Maybe it's that circle of scientist that know or could know the answer to your question .They have at least a imagination ,and are not afraid to ask and pose a answer . www.universetoday.com... anything else you may have ignorantly not thought of

Are you going to ignore my previous post?

We are actually aware of four dimensions, the fourth being time. For you to speculate that prayer could somehow exist as a function of any higher dimensions is still you tossing out maybes. A literal god of the gaps speculation. "We don't know what is there, so maybe it's god". Even the article you take this quote from doesn't even mention this as a possibility. I dare say the scientists who work on such problems would be miffed at this far fetched use of their work. They didn't even speculate as to what the higher dimensions would be except a different way to percieve the world around us. You are just placing prayer there because it is a convenient place for you to hide any uncertainty.

We actually have far more senses than the five we were taught as children. jhupressblog.com...

But you didn't bother to look that up either. Or to even acknowledge my previous posts. We should at least talk about your obvious out dated scientific understanding. This alone should be a red flag to you that possibly your lack of education could lead you to have some very wrong ideas of what is possible.

millions of trained scientists have put in billions of man hours over hundreds of years to hone the processes by which we use to determine the truth of how the universe works. You toss aside the importance of that knowledge and those processes to toss darts at their chaulkboards hoping that gods will stick.

How to Pray: What Does the Bible Really Teach?

Prayer—How?

Prayers That Are Heard by God: Awake!—2002 (The Bible’s Viewpoint)

originally posted by: whereislogic
How to Pray: What Does the Bible Really Teach?

Prayer—How?

Prayers That Are Heard by God: Awake!—2002 (The Bible’s Viewpoint)

Is any of this supported by scientific evaluation or is this just normal religious rhetoric?

After reading your links, i see that this is just rhetoric. Where is the science? Have you been paying attention?

a reply to: Woodcarver
Yes, this is supported by a knowledgeable/scientific evaluation. But apparently not any time soon by you.

At least that's what your commentary is impressing on me for now, I would like to encourage you (or everyone here) to acquire the knowledge/science required for this subject to make such a knowledgeable/scientific evaluation for yourself though.

A person can start here instead for example if the food in those articles above is too solid:
Unlocking The Mystery of Life
It's advisable to start with milk (the evidence for God's existence and the bible's reliability as well as being God's Word from Genesis to Revelation; a reliable source of accurate knowledge/science), not solid food (the subject of "prayer") without any regard for God's Word as in taking it seriously.
But get those neurons firing first:

Before you get to this video that discusses the brain as well:
Is Belief in God Reasonable? part 1 of 2

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Woodcarver
Yes, this is supported by a knowledgeable/scientific evaluation. But apparently not any time soon by you.

At least that's what your commentary is impressing on me for now, I would like to encourage you (or everyone here) to acquire the knowledge/science required for this subject to make such a knowledgeable/scientific evaluation for yourself though.

A person can start here instead for example if the food in those articles above is too solid:
Unlocking The Mystery of Life
It's advisable to start with milk (the evidence for God's existence and the bible's reliability as well as being God's Word from Genesis to Revelation; a reliable source of accurate knowledge/science), not solid food (the subject of "prayer") without any regard for God's Word as in taking it seriously.
But get those neurons firing first:

Before you get to this video that discusses the brain as well:
Is Belief in God Reasonable? part 1 of 2

Are you really making the claim that modern science accepts and supports creationism?

a reply to: Woodcarver

science = knowledge (from the Latin "scientia")

Creationism involves the teaching that the earth and the universe is approx. 6000 years old; because the term was introduced by those promoting what has also become known as "young earth creationism", with the SDA church and Ellen White at the heart of that pomotion in the 20th century; I've tried to get further information about Bishop Ussher but have been unable to get any clear answers from those promoting young earth creationism that Bishop Usher supports their views, so I've been unable to trace the philosophy back beyond the early 20th century, but I'm not ruling it out, Bishop Ussher does seem like a likely candidate for an early version of some kind of young earth storyline.

Knowledge doesn't "accept" (or at least it shows one is thinking a bit weirdly about the subject, perhaps thinking about some mythological consensus of opinion* between those who started referring to themselves and eachother as "scientists" around Darwin's time, where before they were more often called "natural philosophers"). *: synonym for opinion is "belief", allthough I would doubt you would be thinking of the opinions published in so-called "peer reviewed" articles as "beliefs" (that's not saying that these articles don't often also contain a lot of facts that are presented as supposedly supporting those opinions/beliefs and philosophies/ideas, and I could say something to close the door for you to play the "science denier" or "science conspiracy" paint job at this point but I don't feel like it other than mentioning that you might be thinking of them at this point, most articles are fine and are not riddled with opinions and philosophies supported by cherry-picked facts presented in a twisted manner relying on faulty logic and the reader already having been indoctrinated with using a faulty way of thinking)

Knowledge/science can support a rational reasonable conclusion though, but young earth creationism functions as a straw man argument to give philosophical naturalists a sense of intellectual superiority (or further nurture that feeling) and to discredit the bible, much like the Trinitarianism that goes along with it (btw, Darwin's only degree was a Bachelor of Arts in Divinity/The Divine Studies, nowadays called Theology, received from the Trinitarians at Christ's College who trained him how to argue and philosophize and sell his philosophies as "science"; a practice that has been done and passed on by top Trinitarians for centuries, like Kenneth Miller, the Roman Catholic selling the chromosome #2 fusion myth as "science").

Evolutionary philosophies dependent on philosophical naturalism ('Nature did it' regarding the origin of life for example, as addressed by the evolutionary philosophy called "chemical evolution" as it is in the 1st videolink) is not "science", it's pantheism/Mother Nature worship in the closet, stripped of its theism and anything that might remind a person of its religious roots (while the way of thinking, reasoning and arguing behind them, as well as the behaviour of those who adhere to them, remains the same).

The right type of knowledge/science supports the only possible rational conclusion that the biomolecular machinery and technology required for life requires at least 1 creator and designer with a level of technological advancement and technical know-how (intelligence, knowledge, understanding, foresight, will and purpose, to name a few other logical requirements) that corresponds with the technology in question. Other types of knowledge (from a study of history for example, human behaviour especially or human history) can be acquired to help determin who this Creator is and why a capital in that word is appropiate. Conclusions can be drawn from experiments and observations by induction as Newton explained when he was explaining a proper methodology for that which later became known as "modern science" (a term I doubt Newton would have agreed with, but that's a total side issue, the methodology has been proven to be effective when it comes to discovering facts/realities/truths/certainties or that which is true/certain/factual/absolute/conclusive/definitive about specific subjects). The bible writer Paul's (in the book of Romans, see video) argument of induction and Newton's argument of induction (and everyone in between) regarding "creation" (quoting Paul) by an "intelligent being" (quoting Newton) or "Creator, God" (quoting the bible and Paul) "should not* be evaded by" wishful thinking, wishful ignorace or playing dumb (as if the argument of induction is too hard to understand, east-indian deafness as they say in the Netherlands when someone doesn't want to hear something). *: should not, as in, that would not be a proper effective methodology to acquire science/knowledge about realities/facts/truths/certainties and I'm quoting Newton on that subject. It's still your choice though how to proceed.

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

From wiki:

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Here's Newton's argument of induction regarding the evidence for God's existence:
Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality
Here's Michael Behe's argument of induction regarding the evidence for design:
Evidence of Design from Biology. A Presentation by Dr. Michael Behe
And here's the history related to my commentary about pantheism and philosophical naturalism:
The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1

a reply to: Woodcarver
edit: I meant "willful ignorance" not "wishful".

a reply to: Woodcarver

from what I have read a particular is a part of an atom more the size of Molecule.


They are not just colliding complete whole molecules but parts a well.

But yes they are also colliding whole atoms as well which more dangerous than just a particle of one.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Woodcarver
edit: I meant "willful ignorance" not "wishful".

This video has a message concerning the topic of willful ignorance, but perhaps it's best not to watch after 12 minutes, some confusing things are said at that point:

a reply to: Woodcarver

More or less I am asking for an explanation of how prayers work, and why most prayers don't work.

Prayer is not explained very easily. My understanding is that one must realize exactly what prayer is. It can be a conversation between a deity and the creation or it can be pleading for an intervention of some sort. [asking for a favor] --
In the first century Christianity the Creator gave His creation the gifts of the Holy Spirit as is taught in 1st Corinthians Chapter 12. Most all Christian denominations today do not subscribe to the gifts of the Creator as described in 1st Corinthians Chapter 12. So it is a matter of what you believe and how you believe. There are some things in life that are not the permissive will of God and there are some things in life that are the permissive will of God. God has a perfect will and a permissive will.

A good example is death. Death is a perfect will of the Creator which cannot be bargained. Even though a person can be healed from a malady many times over, by the permissive will of God, there comes a time for God's perfect will to be realized. So in respect of 1st Corinthians it is a gift of God and not anything that we can demand or gain favor. I knew a man of many years ago who would lock himself in a room and talk things over with his Creator. At times it would be several hours just discussing the heavenly things of his understanding. Was this man crazy? Many thought so and many did not think so. It all depends upon what you believe.

a reply to: Woodcarver

You are just placing prayer there because it is a convenient place for you to hide any uncertainty.

Just like learning to swim at first we have doubts and fears... Some can never overcome those fears and never learn how to swim ... Now back to prayer and how it works and why it may not in cases . From the Book of James which is where we get instructions ..1:6 If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But he must ask in faith, without doubting, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not expect to receive anything from the Lord.…

They had two physicians and families of patients who were on deaths door today on Dr. Oz

I know this may not be the answers you are looking for Woodcarver.. but these physicians had very interesting stories about people who prayed and miraculous healings occured that the best and brightest doctors were baffled by.

Both doctors agreed that faith and prayer do help in the recovery process even to the point of miracles.

I would recommend you watch todays airing of Dr. Oz if you are intetested in seeing how some professional medical doctors have witnessed what prayer can do.

This may not answer your question but it is related to it so I thought I would post.

The best way to learn how something works is to do it yourself. Just like learning anything. In order to master a skill you have to practice.

I will give you a hint how to begin. Faith. Look the definition of Faith up in the bible. If you can understand the definition and use it, you will have your answer.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Woodcarver

from what I have read a particular is a part of an atom more the size of Molecule.


They are not just colliding complete whole molecules but parts a well.

But yes they are also colliding whole atoms as well which more dangerous than just a particle of one.

Lol. You have no idea what the difference is between an atom and a molecule? And instead of going and reading about it, you decided to post some ignorant BS?

prayers work of the power of unicorn jizz

everytime a unicorn mastrubates - a prayer is answered