Does God Intervene?

[POI]

Christians, both in prayer and without, will state God gave me this, did that, or other.

For debate: Does God ever intervene, with or without being asked? If no, why ever ask God for anything? If yes, why does he skip many/all requests?

[POI]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #40]

YOU Name the peer-reviewed meta-analysis that demonstrates no statistical difference between prayed-for and non-prayed-for cohorts across all curable conditions.

POI First of all, you are twisting my words. P8 reads "P8: By applying basic "science", lab results confirm the removal of some of these curable unwanted 'evil' conditions/illnesses/afflictions/etc, whether prayer is applied or not.". Note the words in bold.

I already gave you one peer-reviewed case study, for which you have now ignored 3 times now. Prayer has a higher propensity of adverse (or) unwanted outcomes in regard to heart patients. Family/patient stressors in prayer supersede God's requested intervention for wanted recovery. If an infinite God wanted a specific outcome, family/patient psyche would not matter. An infinite God's desired intervening outcome would not be detoured. Not only did prayer not help, but it also sometimes made outcomes worse. And this is only addressing one potentially "curable" medical condition.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/ --> "Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

YOU a handful of ALS plateaus that baffled neurologists. Were all of those cases prayer-free? Produce the database.

POI Regardless, no one could ever prove that no outside intercessory prayer was not applied. This is what truly makes your apologetic position unfalsifiable. Further, what if a Hindu, a Muslim, and a Christian all prayed for the same patient? Who gets the credit, if any?

Let's stay focused on ALS here.

ChatGPT:

Spontaneous remission in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is extremely rare, but there have been a small number of reported cases that could be considered partial or temporary remissions, especially in atypical or slowly progressing variants of the disease. Here's a breakdown:

1. Documented Cases
A handful of case reports in the medical literature describe patients diagnosed with ALS who experienced long periods of disease stability or even partial recovery of function.

These cases are often classified as:

Misdiagnoses (e.g., ALS mimic syndromes)

Very slowly progressive ALS (VSP-ALS) or benign ALS

Focal ALS, where the disease does not generalize

2. Notable Case Types
Flail arm or flail leg syndrome: These variants can progress very slowly, and some patients may show plateaus that mimic remission.

Postpartum ALS: A few reports have suggested temporary improvement or slowing of symptoms postpartum.

Immune-modulated remission: A few experimental or anecdotal cases involve partial improvement after immune therapy, though not consistent or reproducible in trials.

3. Scientific View
The consensus in the medical community is that true spontaneous remission in classic ALS is virtually nonexistent.

ALS is generally a progressive, irreversible neurodegenerative disease.

When remission-like patterns are seen, alternative diagnoses (like multifocal motor neuropathy or CIDP) are often reconsidered.


*****************************************

Even if a true case of ALS went into remission after prayer, what god(s) were they praying to anyways? Please note what I stated at the bottom of post 37. Further, in regard to diagnoses, I trust we agree doctors are dead-wrong all the time. Even about the simplest of things. This is why second opinions are encouraged. This is also why medicine is called a practice. Heck, I have a close friend who is diagnosed with a rare cancer, which is "untreatable", And yet, chemo helped? She is an atheist BTW, and so is the rest of her family. No prayer confirmed. The oncologist gave here 3 months to live, 10 months ago. Go figure.

I know what you are thinking here... Well then, I'm offering an unfalsifiable position. No. True ALS is not curable. Further, remission is just that, remission, not a cure.

******************************************

Prayer is illogical for other reason(s) too. I still trust you will eventually address the other reasons, as given in the other posts aforementioned?.?.??

[POI]

Demonstrate the logical bridge from “some prayers unanswered” to “God nonexistent.”

I already spoke to this... Allow me to re-explain in a differing way....

It would matter not if us fallible humans deem an unwanted 'evil' condition/illness/other curable <vs> incurable. Please take note of what you stated prior:

Remove all earthly evil and you erase the very arena where courage, compassion, and repentance are born.

Well, regardless of the unwanted condition, in which they all suck, they are all deemed "evil". Curable vs incurable, they can all be used to test one's courage, compassion, and repentance. The only difference is that some may be temporary and some are not. Some of the most torturous experiences are very temporary. And yet, can yield 'enlightenment' or an appreciation for not having to experience it any longer.

It is illogical for a claimed intervening god to skip some unwanted 'evil' conditions, while addressing others. Logically, no coloration would be distinguishable between the condition's we humans deem curable, verses not. No real pattern would emerge. The 'evil' condition would almost be irrelevant, as they all suck. There would exist no pattern. Which means we would logically and statistically see both curable and incurable conditions vanish after prayer. Further, some of the most curable and brief unwanted conditions/experiences/other could very much fulfill the same goal as the ones which linger longer, or even for a lifetime.

In a nutshell, your position makes no logical sense. To claim an intervening god exists raises more than one logical issue.

[mms20102]

[Replying to POI in post #41]

Reply to POI – Randomised-Controlled Evidence vs. Your Single Study

You insist that prayer is “no better than chance.” The published data say otherwise.
Below is a streamlined, fully referenced catalogue of RCTs across four traditions, followed by point-by-point answers to your objections.

---

1. Islamic Trials

• Jabbari 2020 – 168 pregnant women. Twenty-minute Qur’an audio × 3 wks → ↓ stress/anxiety/depression ≈ 30 % vs. silence/soft-music.
• Nasiri 2014 – 84 post-CABG pts. Quiet dhikr (“Allāh”) q 2 h → ↓ pain & morphine use (p < 0.05).
• Saged 2020 – 150 GAD out-patients. Daily 30 min Qur’an × 4 wks → − 10 Hamilton-Anxiety vs. wait-list (p < 0.001).
• Aburuz 2023 – 120 heart-surgery pts. Two 15-min Qur’an sessions on day 1 → ↓ pain & ICU stay ≈ − 24 h (p < 0.01).

Pattern: Recitation/dhikr reliably lowers acute pain, anxiety, LOS—no added drugs, no added risk.

---

2. Christian Trials

• Benson 2006 (STEP) – 1 802 CABG pts. Off-site intercession neutral; pts told they were prayed for had more anxiety-linked complications.
• MANTRA 2004 – 748 angioplasty pts. Mixed-denomination intercession = no sig. benefit @ 6 mo.
• McIntosh 2022 – 92 students. 7-day guided Psalm meditation ↑ hope, ↓ depression vs. silent reading (p < 0.01).

Pattern: “Stranger intercession” is mixed; direct scripture-meditation shows short-term mood benefit.

---

3. Hindu-derived Mantra / Yoga Trials

• Sharma 2022 (meta-review, 15 RCTs, n = 1 134) – Silent mantra ↓ SBP 7 mm Hg, ↓ anxiety (g = 0.47).
• Wilkinson 2021 – 58 MDD adults. 20 min mantra-breath daily × 6 mo → − 12 Beck-Depression vs. treatment-as-usual (p < 0.01).
• Eyre 2017 – 81 elders w/ MCI. Kundalinī yoga (60 min/wk + mantra homework) ↑ exec fxn & mood vs. memory-training (p = 0.02).

Pattern: Repetitive sacred syllables + breath/yoga yield cardiometabolic & psychiatric gains.

---

4. Aggregate Takeaway

Across Islam, Christianity and Hindu practice, well-designed RCTs consistently show adjunctive benefit—lower pain, faster recovery, improved mood, lower BP—without evidence that prayer is ever inferior to standard medication. Low cost, negligible risk.

---

Answering Your Specific Claims

A. “Prayer sometimes makes outcomes worse” – your lone STEP citation
1. STEP itself admits the anxiety spike came from pts knowing they were prayed for, not from prayer per se.
2. Even counting STEP, the systematic reviews (e.g., Sharma 2022 above) still show net benefit.
3. Cherry-picking a single neutral/negative trial while ignoring dozens of positive RCTs is selection bias.

B. “Produce one meta-analysis showing no benefit”
You have the burden of proof. I just supplied a positive meta-review (Sharma 2022). Present a comparably broad, methodologically sound review that reverses those findings—or concede.

C. “If an infinite God wanted X, family psyche wouldn’t matter”
You’re sneaking in an unstated premise: “God’s only rational motive is immediate physical cure.”
That is not a scientific hypothesis; it’s a theological assertion that must itself be argued.

D. “Prayer claims are unfalsifiable because you can’t prove no one prayed”
RCTs solve that:
• Prospective randomisation.
• Documented protocols (who prays, duration, blinding).
• Control arms whose treatment explicitly excludes the variable.
If your standard demands God sign a notarised affidavit that no rogue prayer was uttered, then not just prayer studies but most biomedical trials become “unfalsifiable.”

E. ALS & ‘spontaneous remission’
• ALS was your red-herring, not mine. I never cited it as evidence for prayer.
• Consensus: true ALS remission ≈ 0 %. Therefore it is irrelevant to the positive RCTs above.

F. “Multiple religions—who gets credit?”
Multivariate causation is common in medicine. The existence of shared mechanisms (e.g., autonomic down-regulation, focused attention) is entirely compatible with multiple traditions tapping the same psychophysiological pathways.

---

Your Remaining Tasks

1. Produce a broad meta-analysis overturning the cross-tradition RCT data above and demonstrating no statistical benefit of prayer/recitation across pain, anxiety, BP, post-op recovery, etc.

2. Supply an airtight syllogism—or explicit scripture—that states:

If an all-powerful God exists, He is obliged to eliminate every human-defined incurable disease on demand.

Until you meet those two conditions, the “stuffed-animal” analogy is empirically and logically bankrupt.
Your move.

[POI]

• Jabbari 2020 – 168 pregnant women. Twenty-minute Qur’an audio × 3 wks → ↓ stress/anxiety/depression ≈ 30 % vs. silence/soft-music.

So does Lamaze. And not only with the patient's psyche, but with their physical pain, time in labor, as well as reducing the need for C-section(s). --> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/P ... 200.325%5D)

When comparing Lamaze to Islamic prayer, there yielded no better result, from one to another. Which then means the mind is very powerful, as long as meditation application is applied correctly and is fully trusted.

There is no such specific Christian study. However, with the demonstration of Lamaze alone, we are aware that 'mind over matter' is powerful when it comes to recovery.

Further, I already acknowledged that praying sometimes gets the credit for curing the human deemed "curable".

• Nasiri 2014 – 84 post-CABG pts. Quiet dhikr (“Allāh”) q 2 h → ↓ pain & morphine use (p < 0.05).
• Saged 2020 – 150 GAD out-patients. Daily 30 min Qur’an × 4 wks → − 10 Hamilton-Anxiety vs. wait-list (p < 0.001).
• Aburuz 2023 – 120 heart-surgery pts. Two 15-min Qur’an sessions on day 1 → ↓ pain & ICU stay ≈ − 24 h (p < 0.01).

My given publication, regarding the effects of CABG, relates to complication, meaning major events and 30-day mortality.

You’re sneaking in an unstated premise: “God’s only rational motive is immediate physical cure.”
That is not a scientific hypothesis; it’s a theological assertion that must itself be argued.

Negative. I merely addressed an implied observation. The human mind would not supersede a claimed infinite God's intervention. This is while also discovering that the mind is very powerful. Example... With the aforementioned case of Lamaze alone, which does not involve prayer to a deity BTW, medical outcomes vastly improved.

If your standard demands God sign a notarised affidavit that no rogue prayer was uttered, then not just prayer studies but most biomedical trials become “unfalsifiable.”

How so?

• ALS was your red-herring, not mine. I never cited it as evidence for prayer.

Great. Then let's scrap this 'incurable' example. Let's instead address unwanted conditions which any layman can identify, (without the need of a medical degree, which may also ultimately be diagnosed in error). I'll let you choose from these three:

1) Downs syndrome
2) Amputation
3) Cerebral palsy

All three of these would easily classify as unwanted, in which might produce petitionary or intercessory prayer(s). Has evidence-based prayer ever removed these three conditions? If not, why not?

F. “Multiple religions—who gets credit?”
Multivariate causation is common in medicine. The existence of shared mechanisms (e.g., autonomic down-regulation, focused attention) is entirely compatible with multiple traditions tapping the same psychophysiological pathways.

My point here was that "curable" recoveries happen in the hospital all the time. And often times, prayers to differing god(s) are applied. They all take the credit.

1. Produce a broad meta-analysis overturning the cross-tradition RCT data above and demonstrating no statistical benefit of prayer/recitation across pain, anxiety, BP, post-op recovery, etc.

I already addressed this above. My example addresses actual complications, not mere mind-over-matter stuff.

2. Supply an airtight syllogism—or explicit scripture—that states: If an all-powerful God exists, He is obliged to eliminate every human-defined incurable disease on demand.

Regardless of the unwanted condition, in which they all suck, they are all deemed "evil". Curable vs incurable, they can all be used to test one's courage, compassion, and repentance. The only difference is that some may be temporary and some are not. Some of the most torturous experiences are very temporary. And yet, can test courage, compassion, and repentance.

It is illogical for a claimed intervening god to skip some unwanted 'evil' conditions, while addressing others. Logically, no correlation would be distinguishable between the condition's we humans deem curable, verses not. No real pattern would emerge. The 'evil' condition would almost be irrelevant, as they all suck, and are apparently all there to test humans. There would exist no pattern. Which means we would logically and statistically see both curable and incurable conditions vanish, after prayer, at the same random rate. Further, some of the most curable and brief unwanted conditions/experiences/other could very much fulfill the same goal as the ones which linger longer, or even for a lifetime.

In a nutshell, your position makes no logical sense. To claim an intervening god exists raises more than one logical issue.

[marke]

Bumping this topic since virtually no believers ever responded:

For debate: Does God ever intervene, with or without being asked? If no, why ever ask God for anything? If yes, why does he skip many/all requests?

God intervenes as He chooses whether humans ask Him or not and yet He has promised to answer the prayers of humble Christians in accordance with His will.

[mms20102]

[Replying to POI in post #44]


0. A QUICK MAP OF YOUR NEW CLAIMS

(1) “Lamaze does the same thing, therefore prayer adds nothing.”
(2) CABG study tracked *complications*, whereas my Qurʾān trials only tracked “mind-over-matter stuff.”
(3) The human psyche should not override an infinite God.
(4) Prayer is unfalsifiable because rogue prayers can’t be excluded.
(5) Pick — Down-syndrome / amputation / cerebral-palsy — and show prayer ever fixed them.
(6) My request for a meta-analysis “overturning benefit” has been met because STEP tracked complications.

Short answer: (1)–(6) all miss the target. Details below.

---

1 Lamaze ≠ Qurʾān Recitation

• Lamaze is a multifaceted childbirth class:
  – Physical drills (pelvic tilts, squatting, perineal massage)
  – Partner‑applied counter‑pressure and sacral massage
  – Rehearsed patterned breathing and focal imagery
  – Requires weeks of instruction and an active coach in the delivery room.

• Qurʾān recitation / dhikr is a fully spiritual intervention:
  – Participant remains still; no muscle work, no massage
  – Core element is rhythmic, meaning‑laden sound that orients the heart toward God
  – Can be delivered passively by audio in ICU, at home, or by the patient alone—zero specialised training.

Why the comparison is flawed]
Lamaze is a composite mind‑body‑mechanical protocol designed for a niche scenario (labour). Qurʾān recitation is a purely spiritual practice deployable across diagnoses (post‑CABG, anxiety clinics, medical wards). Equating the two is like saying “acupuncture and reciting Psalms are identical because both lower cortisol.” Shared downstream physiology (vagal up‑shift) does not erase upstream differences in content, logistics, and theology.



---

2. “COMPLICATIONS” vs. “MIND-OVER-MATTER” – FALSE DICHOTOMY

• Objective endpoints in the Islamic trials
&nbsp;&nbsp;– Aburuz 2023: ICU stay –24 h (hospital cost, bed turnover: hard data).
&nbsp;&nbsp;– Nasiri 2014: Morphine mg/24 h –18 % (pharmacy record, not a feeling).

• What STEP measured
Primary composite = death, arrhythmia, major infection, etc.
Finding: anonymous off-site intercession ≈ placebo; *knowledge* of being prayed for ↑ AFib by 3 %.

This does *not* contradict the Islamic trials; it merely tells us that strangers praying in another State has weaker signal-to-noise than first-person recitation delivered at bedside.

---

3. “THE MIND SHOULDN’T OUTGUN GOD” – A THEOLOGICAL NON-SEQUITUR

You assume:

> If God intervenes, He must override every psychosomatic variable.

Nowhere do major theistic traditions teach that God suspends every natural feedback loop whenever He acts. Biblical, Qur’ānic, and Hindu sources all depict divine agency working *through* ordinary secondary causes (Joseph’s famine policy, iron smelting, the “camel suturing its own knee” ḥadīth, etc.).

Unless you can cite chapter-and-verse promising a morphine-independent miracle *every* time, the premise is imported, not revealed.

---

4. “UNFALSIFIABLE” – ONLY IF YOU DEMAND OMNISCIENCE FROM RESEARCHERS

Standard RCT safeguards:

1. Randomisation → distributes any ambient “rogue prayers” evenly.
2. Blinding → prevents expectancy bias in raters.
3. Large N → dilutes fringe outliers.

Those are **exactly** the same protections used when testing aspirin or statins. If that is “unfalsifiable,” the entire drug-approval pipeline collapses.

---

5. DOWN SYNDROME, AMPUTATION, CEREBRAL PALSY – CATEGORY ERROR

• These are structural / chromosomal / perinatal-hypoxic lesions.
• Prayer trials target *functional* end-points mediated by neuro-immune or autonomic tone (pain, BP, cytokines, LOS).

Demanding trisomy-21 reversal is like faulting beta-blockers because they don’t regrow limbs: you’ve shifted from physiology to **macro-anatomical reconstruction,** a domain no RCT (and no scripture) ever claimed for routine practice. Produce the doctrinal text that promises limb regeneration on demand, or withdraw the straw man.

---

6. NO, ONE NEGATIVE CABG STUDY ≠ “BROAD META-ANALYSIS”

STEP + MANTRA + Byrd + Cha 2001 + Aburuz + Nasiri + Sharma (15 RCTs) + dozens more = > 6 000 participants.

A single neutral CABG trial cannot overturn an aggregate landscape whose pooled effect-size on pain/BP/anxiety is positive and statistically significant. That is **exactly** why evidence-based medicine relies on systematic reviews, not cherry-picked anecdotes.

---

7. WHAT WOULD COUNT AS ACTUAL REFUTATION

1. A Cochrane-grade meta-analysis across multiple conditions showing *negative* pooled effect or clinically significant harm.
2. Chapter-and-verse stating:

“Whenever My servants ask, every structural defect shall vanish immediately.”

3. A mechanistic model proving that autonomic modulation via speech/breathing is impossible (good luck – Vagus Nerve Stimulation is FDA-approved).

Until then, the data remain: **prayer / sacred recitation = low-cost, low-risk, measurable adjunct.**

---

BOTTOM LINE

Your objections either (a) confirm the general mind-body mechanism (Lamaze), (b) conflate different clinical endpoints, or (c) demand miracles scripture never guaranteed. Meanwhile, multi-tradition RCTs continue to report objective gains.

Call us back when you have a meta-analysis that flips the sign. Otherwise, the “stuffed animal” analogy stays empirically bankrupt.

[POI]

Surah Ash-Shu'ara (26:80) -- "And when I am ill, it is He (Allah) who heals me." -- This is a statement of Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham), acknowledging that it is Allah alone who has the power to heal him from any illness or condition. It highlights the importance of recognizing Allah’s power to heal, which believers can invoke through prayer and supplication.

Here lies the question... Does your claimed god ever intervene to cure unwanted human deemed 'incurable' conditions/afflictions/other, or not? Seems like you might be suggesting that he does not? Depending on how you answer here, will then set the stage for how we procede moving forward....

Short answer: (1)–(6) all miss the target.

In short. No, they don't. See below....

1) You missed my point. You brought up childbirth. My point about childbirth is that better outcomes can be achieved without prayer to a perceived god. But regardless, nothing miraculous happens, regardless of using (Lamaze verses prayer). Unless you now wish to provide a deemed miraculous conclusion with prayer? One in which Lamaze most certainly could not also facilitate, because Lamaze cannot perform miracles.

2) Much like our human created cell network, in issuing sufficient cell towers, I guess your god needs to add more prayer towers

3) You missed my point here again. I would assume a claimed infinite god's might easily trumps human psyche. If God wants to intervene, God will intervene.

4) My point here was missed again. There is no way to prove whether or not intercessory prayer was applied. If a case study states no prayer was involved, which favors the position that prayer is irrelevant, the believer could merely claim "how do you know someone did not secretly pray"?

5) I see this as a complete cop out. According to you, all unwanted 'evil' afflictions/conditions/diseases are here to test humans. Seems odd God only avoids intervention for the "incurable" ones? Further, as stated prior, a human can sometimes learn just as much with temporary unwanted 'evil' afflictions, verses permanent ones. Hence, we would sometimes see cures with all unwanted prayed for 'evil' conditions, which test humans, at the same random rate.

6) The rate of success should statistically be higher with any/all prayed for unwanted 'evil' conditions, since they are all meant to test humans. Since many prayed for a specific result in this study, this means this condition is deemed 'evil'.

Thus far, praying to a stuffed animal, which is ultimately a metaphor for (you are not praying to an actual god), seems most logical. Again, think of Occam's Razor, as I mentioned prior.

[mms20102]

[Replying to POI in post #47]


Duck Logic, Prayer Towers, and the “Miracle or Bust” Fallacy

Have you ever seen a beheaded duck zigzag around before collapsing? That’s precisely what your reply looks like—flailing with momentum, but directionless. Let’s pin it down.

---

1. “Prayer isn’t miraculous, so it’s irrelevant” – the false binary
You’ve now painted yourself into a theological corner. You’re demanding that the only acceptable outcome of prayer is miracle-level intervention—instant leg regeneration, trisomy deletion, or divine rewriting of biology. Anything short of that = “nothing happened.”

But that’s not how the Qur’an describes divine healing:

> “When I am ill, it is He who heals me.” (Qur’an 26:80)
No thunderclaps. No teleportation of doctors. Just recovery—whether by immune rebound, neurochemical recalibration, or successful surgery—credited to God as the source of cure.

Your miracle-or-bust framing is a category error. It's like rejecting antibiotics because they don’t make the bottle glow. The real question is: does prayer measurably improve outcomes when used? And the RCTs across three religions have already answered: yes.

---

2. Lamaze vs Prayer: If both improve outcomes, prayer isn’t real?
That logic backfires. If Lamaze breathing reduces C-section risk, and Qur'an recitation reduces ICU time—how does the success of one negate the other? That’s like saying "diet helps blood pressure, so beta-blockers must be fake." No, it just means multiple interventions can tap the same physiological system.

Your “stuffed-animal” metaphor dies the moment you acknowledge that prayer shows objective outcomes beyond baseline—even if it shares some mechanisms with secular interventions. Occam’s Razor doesn’t rescue you; it cuts you.

---

3. “Prayer towers” – cute, but irrelevant
Your joke about God needing more “prayer towers” ignores the entire point of RCT controls. In these trials:

• Prayer exposure is randomized
• Controls are matched
• Outcomes are measured
• Rogue prayer is statistically canceled out

This isn’t theology; it’s methodology. If you reject this standard, you reject all clinical science—because background noise exists in every trial, not just prayer ones.

---

4. “Unwanted = evil = test = all must be cured randomly” – the theological blender
Now you’ve collapsed moral philosophy, medical ontology, and theology into a single soup:
> “If God uses affliction to test us, and both temporary and permanent suffering test equally, then God should cure all of them randomly and equally.”

No scripture teaches that. No logic demands that. Not even Occam’s Razor dares to cut that deep.

You’re demanding that God operate like a vending machine: insert prayer → guaranteed cure. That’s not theistic belief; that’s magical thinking. And it’s exactly the kind of thinking that the Qur’an rebukes (e.g., 2:216, 17:11).

---

5. You still haven’t refuted the RCT data
• Qur'an recitation lowers pain, ICU time, anxiety.
• Mantra + yoga reduces blood pressure and depression.
• Psalm meditation boosts mood and hope.
• These effects are statistically significant, replicated, peer-reviewed.

Your reply?
A single CABG study + miracle-or-nothing theology + prayer tower jokes.

That’s not rebuttal. That’s deflection.

---

6. Final Word
You can zigzag around all you like, POI. But sooner or later, you’ll have to answer the core of the case:

> Do you have a systematic, peer-reviewed meta-analysis showing that prayer across multiple traditions has no measurable effect on any physiological or psychological outcome?

If not, then your “stuffed-animal” analogy remains not just unscientific—but scientifically falsified.

Your move.

[POI]

1. “Prayer isn’t miraculous, so it’s irrelevant” – the false binary
You’ve now painted yourself into a theological corner. You’re demanding that the only acceptable outcome of prayer is miracle-level intervention—instant leg regeneration, trisomy deletion, or divine rewriting of biology. Anything short of that = “nothing happened.”

The reason you think I'm "flailing" is because you are misunderstanding my intent at every turn. Please recall the original post title. --> Goes GOD intervene? I asked you a very important question. To answer this question, let's explore what I mean by 'incurable'. In the context of this term, I mean humans have limitations, based upon natural law, limited discovery, etc... Some requests could not be facilitated without breaking natural law, having advanced knowledge, etc. To further explain here, what I'm asking is, at some point, no matter how advanced humans become in discovery/technology/etc, humans have limits. On the other hand, a claimed infinite God would not. In order to determine that a GOD intervened, in which could certainly NOT be confused or mistaken for (no god) intervention, is to identify an action which MUST have come from beyond, or god(s), either because humans are limited, or, humans have not yet discovered to 'cure'. Otherwise, anyone can invoke any 'god or gods as intervening.

I'll now re-ask the question.

Does your claimed god ever intervene to cure unwanted human deemed 'incurable' conditions/afflictions/other, or not? A simple yes or no here will suffice.

No thunderclaps. No teleportation of doctors. Just recovery—whether by immune rebound, neurochemical recalibration, or successful surgery—credited to God as the source of cure.

Then how might one distinguish if an actual GOD actually intervened, verses not? What becomes a problem for people like you, is you have to deal with the fact that the Torah is filled with all sorts exaggerated 'miracles', which could only be attributed and/or associated with a 'god'. But now, after we have means to explore, he stopped.

Your miracle-or-bust framing is a category error. It's like rejecting antibiotics because they don’t make the bottle glow. The real question is: does prayer measurably improve outcomes when used? And the RCTs across three religions have already answered: yes.

LOL! Again, please note the title of this thread. My question is NOT if prayer measurably improves or even disproves outcomes. We can easily prove this. My question is, does an actual God ever intervene? This is why I highlight notating an intervention in which humans could not achieve on their own. If God intervenes all the time, God's interventions would not be limited by human ability. You should be able to identify countless examples. But it instead seems this is where the story ends for you?

Your “stuffed-animal” metaphor dies the moment you acknowledge that prayer shows objective outcomes beyond baseline—even if it shares some mechanisms with secular interventions. Occam’s Razor doesn’t rescue you; it cuts you.

Already addressed above.

And yes, Occam's Razor is pretty damning for you.

3. “Prayer towers” – cute, but irrelevant
Your joke about God needing more “prayer towers” ignores the entire point of RCT controls. In these trials:

• Prayer exposure is randomized
• Controls are matched
• Outcomes are measured
• Rogue prayer is statistically canceled out

This isn’t theology; it’s methodology. If you reject this standard, you reject all clinical science—because background noise exists in every trial, not just prayer ones.

Nope. Again, already answered above. Please remember, your claim is that an infinite God exists, which intervenes.

4. “Unwanted = evil = test = all must be cured randomly” – the theological blender
Now you’ve collapsed moral philosophy, medical ontology, and theology into a single soup:
> “If God uses affliction to test us, and both temporary and permanent suffering test equally, then God should cure all of them randomly and equally.”

No scripture teaches that. No logic demands that. Not even Occam’s Razor dares to cut that deep.

You’re demanding that God operate like a vending machine: insert prayer → guaranteed cure. That’s not theistic belief; that’s magical thinking. And it’s exactly the kind of thinking that the Qur’an rebukes (e.g., 2:216, 17:11).

Already addressed. Further, you continue to issue more straw man arguments.

5. You still haven’t refuted the RCT data
• Qur'an recitation lowers pain, ICU time, anxiety.
• Mantra + yoga reduces blood pressure and depression.
• Psalm meditation boosts mood and hope.
• These effects are statistically significant, replicated, peer-reviewed.

Your reply?
A single CABG study + miracle-or-nothing theology + prayer tower jokes.

That’s not rebuttal. That’s deflection.

Already addressed. Where is the identified intervention from this infinite god, verses not?

Do you have a systematic, peer-reviewed meta-analysis showing that prayer across multiple traditions has no measurable effect on any physiological or psychological outcome?

Already answered near the top. But this is not my concern, it is only yours. Which has nothing to do with proving that an infinite god intervenes.

If not, then your “stuffed-animal” analogy remains not just unscientific—but scientifically falsified.

Please try again.

[POI]

Bumping this topic since virtually no believers ever responded:

For debate: Does God ever intervene, with or without being asked? If no, why ever ask God for anything? If yes, why does he skip many/all requests?

God intervenes as He chooses whether humans ask Him or not and yet He has promised to answer the prayers of humble Christians in accordance with His will.

Then how come God never intervenes to cure the incurable?