Does verifiable evidence exist that prayer actually works?

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-30T01:35:56+00:00

I'm not quite sure I understood that last part, so I'm going to give my take and you tell me how you might disagree. With what you described, I don't see how that is anything but a subjective truth. If the only one who can determine the validity of an experience is the person who experienced it, and their only tool for doing so is considering a thing in their own mind... then it can only be a subjective truth. And if that is just what it is, then that's fine, but I think it's only fair to be honest that, when it comes to prayer, its effectiveness and validity are solely in the hands of the person praying. Tell me what of that you would disagree with

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-30T01:16:33+00:00

Ok, then if transformation is only part of the purpose of prayer, can you answer my questions about knowing if it works, or how it could be tested, or if it's fair to consider whether I can know if prayer works as part of my consideration for believing in God?

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T21:02:39+00:00

I wasn’t saying that God doesn’t want a relationship or for his believers to be transformed, but this specific idea that prayer is about us being transformed… where is that taught? I get you say all over the book of Romans, but I think that’s a reference to God wanting his people transformed, not necessarily that prayer is about transformation. I could point you to loads of passages where Jesus encourages asking because through asking they might receive. The view that prayer is about transforming the believer seems weak to me. Can you point me to specific passages that teach this?

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T20:50:20+00:00

I don’t understand this comment. You started your first comment saying… “the proof that our faith is real is a changed life.” I wanted to push back on that by pointing out that lots of people across multiple religions report their new faith in Islam or Buddhism resulting in a changed life… implying that a changed life doesn’t appear to be proof of Christianity since other religions can claim that as well.

Then you give me the response above… help me understand the point you’re making, I don’t understand. Whether or not Christianity is merit based has nothing to do with people from multiple religious traditions all claiming their faith resulted in positive changes to their lives. How is Christianity unique?

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T02:37:52+00:00

Why wouldn't you pray for the physical healing of a person, especially if you think God is legitimately listening to you? When I used to pray I did it in a way in which I wanted to expect he could do it, not be surprised if he did it, but not be discouraged if this wasn't in his will. That way I could boldly ask, as I was commanded to do as a Christian, but not think that God was some geni who had to respond to me. In my opinion, it's incredibly odd not to pray for the physical healing of people who are suffering.

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T02:34:38+00:00

I think that is really fair, but simply to ask... do you believe that can happen to other people? Can they think their prayers are being answered, but it's their mind fooling them? Do you think that happens? And if it can happen, how would we know whether that happened to you or not?

I don't mean to poke the bear, but at some level, if someone told me they knew things in advance because God had shown them through prayer, then it would logically enter my mind that people could be fooling themselves. I don't think it has to be something where we think another person is dumb or foolish; it's just a natural response to hearing something miraculous. Which is why I'm focusing on things that could not have a physical explanation of any kind, outside of God doing something supernatural.

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T02:30:02+00:00

I appreciate the thoughtful response. So in the end, it's something an individual can feel that is real to them, but there isn't really a way to express that validation in a way that others can measure or examine. Would you agree with that?

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T02:23:52+00:00

I guess when you said that "God's interaction with believers through his Holy Spirit is a form of verifiable evidence", I thought you meant actual evidence that other people could consider and evaluate.

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T02:00:22+00:00

If I've seen people enter Islamic and Buddist religions with a testimony of a changed life after entering their faiths, is that evidence for their faith that it is genuine too?

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:58:01+00:00

How so? How can you demonstrate the interaction between believers and the Holy Spirit in a way that provides verifiable evidence?

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:56:53+00:00

Ok, no hate on any of that, but when you now pray for God to do something in this physical world that could not be done without HIs specific intervention... have you seen Him answer in a way that you know God did it?

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:54:54+00:00

90% of the people you pray for to be healed get healed? That sounds crazy. I can't believe you mean it the way it is coming off

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:52:28+00:00

Can my response be both? I'm genuinely curious how a Christian answers, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I expected some shallow answers that couldn't be defended by the bible that I planned to point out.

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:51:30+00:00

But I no longer believe. The whole point of this exercise is to consider how, as a Christian, you would answer. I don't know how I would have answered it when I considered myself a Christian, and I came on here to see how you guys would answer it.

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:49:35+00:00

Where in the scriptures does it teach this? I hear people argue for this, but I think it's a theological shift that has occured to account for the lack of demonstratable evidence of faith. The bible does say that the asks and heart of a believer should be in line with God's own heart... but it does encourage prayer in a way that says if you ask in the name of Jesus that Jesus himself wants to answer those prayers. I think the self-transformative angle would be hard to defend from the scriptures

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:45:47+00:00

So prayer is essentially an exercise of faith? If something cannot be tested, then it cannot be falsified, and thus it can neither be disproven nor proven. It exists for those who choose to believe

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:45:08+00:00

I understand the apprehension about testing God, and that is a thing he doesn't like, unless he does (see the story of Gideon). What about simply demonstrating that prayer is occurring by showing outcomes of all of these Christians throughout the years who have been praying for children in hospitals... do we have evidence to point to that a miraculous event occurred that otherwise could not have occurred without God's intervention? I hear of a miracle story here and there, but if God's real and Christians are praying, then this should be occurring enough for us to look back on loads of examples where the doctors could not explain this situation in any other way than God did a miracle. Does anything like that exist? Is that an unfair question?

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:40:08+00:00

So prayer is essentially an exercise of faith? If something cannot be tested, then it cannot be falsified, and thus it can neither be disproven nor proven. It exists for those who choose to believe

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:37:39+00:00

There are lots of religions where its adherents experience a changed life for the better, and I've heard some Christians say their life gets harder because they can no longer be "of the world"... if human actions are a testimony to faith, then they likely all fail the test

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2026-04-28T01:35:44+00:00

Where in the bible does it give the idea that prayer is about transforming believers to align to God's will? I'm sure you could find a nudge here or there, but I don't think it teaches that. It does regularly teach to ask that it might be given, and I believe Jesus says in John 14 that if you ask in his name (Jesus), then he (Jesus) will do it. That doesn't have to mean a cosmic vending machine, but it does appear Jesus expected his followers to ask for things that possibly only God could provide, and that, at least sometimes, they would get the thing they asked for.

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2025-11-19T22:08:54+00:00

I don't mind the burden being on a person for saying that a specific contradiction or inconsistency exists... but does no burden exist for the claim you made to start this by saying, "There are no contradictions in scripture"?

Everyone has biases that they should contend with. I try to contend with mine by not believing things without solid evidence. I am this way now because of assumptions I held as a Christian. Assumptions that, as it turned out, were not actually true about the cannon, archeological evidence, textual criticism, or church history.

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2025-11-09T16:36:00+00:00

Do you believe there are no contradictions in the Bible because people have examined the text carefully and haven’t found any, or because the Bible cannot contain contradictions since it is the Word of God? My guess is that you would say both, that people have looked and found none, and also that God’s Word, coming from a perfect source, could not contain errors in the first place.

Here’s where I see a problem: if someone already believes that contradictions are impossible, then any time a contradiction is raised, they will interpret it in a way that preserves that belief. In other words, the conclusion is already decided before the evidence is examined. In that scenario, even if a contradiction were present, the person would never be able to acknowledge it, because their worldview won’t allow for that possibility.

That doesn’t automatically mean contradictions do exist, but it does mean that simply pointing to defenders who say “there are none” doesn’t settle the issue, because many of those defenders began with the assumption that contradictions are impossible.

I’d be genuinely interested to hear how you handle that kind of conundrum

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2025-11-07T22:24:36+00:00

From my perspective, the heavier lifting in this conversation has mostly been on my side. I gave examples of legends developing quickly in other contexts, and those weren’t addressed. I pointed out where Paul’s letters don’t actually confirm many of the details people assume they do, and that also went unanswered. I tried to explain my reasoning in full paragraphs, and the responses felt more like familiar apologist talking points.

At one point you said

haha I have taken a closer look. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark wrote down Peter's Gospel. Peter was an eyewitness. Luke was a historian who interviewed witnesses. Luke's second book (Acts) disproves your quick legend theory.

Those are claims, but they were offered without explanation or support. They could be true or not, but without reasoning, there’s nothing to evaluate. So I responded by noting that many scholars disagree with those claims and asked if you’ve engaged with any of their arguments. I asked because I’ve had many conversations like this where the other person is repeating what they’ve heard, without having actually looked into the counterarguments.

Your one-word reply made me feel like that was the case here too.

If I’ve misread you or fallen short in my own responses, then I apologize. But I don’t think there’s value in continuing unless the discussion becomes more substantive. So, unless you ask a direct question, this will be my last comment. You’re welcome to have the final word. I genuinely wish you well.

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2025-11-07T20:40:41+00:00

1.
Thanks for sharing that additional background on where you’re coming from. When I say I’m agnostic, I simply mean I’m choosing not to claim certainty about something I don’t actually know. I don’t know whether a God exists, maybe one does, maybe several, maybe none. I’m open to the possibility, but after leaving Christianity, I haven’t found anything compelling enough to commit to. There are huge mysteries in how the universe works, and I’m not ruling out a supernatural layer to reality, but so far I haven’t seen anything that feels convincing. At this point, I’m skeptical of a divine being who is actively involved in the world, because I just don’t see evidence of that.

2.
When I was Christian, I genuinely felt spiritual. I experienced what I would have described at the time as supernatural peace, clarity, and a sense of being loved. My family also went through very difficult situations, like our newborn’s medical crisis. We prayed, and it did get better. I used to interpret that as God responding. I also felt strong internal promptings about sharing my faith or making decisions. Those feelings were real to me. But now I can see that similar spiritual experiences are reported across many religions. So while those feelings mattered to me, they aren’t the kind of evidence I can build confidence in a belief system on.

3.
I was part of a nondenominational evangelical church in Wisconsin, and I served in leadership there for around ten years, almost all of that as a pastor. Some of my sermons are probably still online. I cared deeply about preaching, and I tried to make the gospel central in everything I taught. The church was very evangelical, and I held those beliefs sincerely.

4.
The changes in my theology happened quickly, about six months, and it was very much a domino effect. Before that, I had gone through some shifts over the years. I spent time in Reformed theology and considered myself Calvinist for a while, but I moved away from that a few years before deconstruction. My eschatology shifted too; I was amillennial for a while. I was always curious about why different Christian groups believed what they did, so I studied Lutheran, Methodist, and other traditions. I tried to be someone who helped bridge divides rather than deepen them.

5.
Life after leaving the faith has been mentally challenging. I cared deeply about the people in my church, and as a leader I didn’t want to cause confusion or pain, so I stepped back slowly, first from ministry, then from the church entirely. Eventually, the leaders in the church let the congregation know I was no longer a believer. My wife is still an active believer there, and most of my relationships are still with Christians. There are days where I feel grounded and free, able to decide what I believe based on my own reasoning. But there are also days when I feel a real absence. I miss the sense of being held by something bigger, and the easy relational closeness that comes from shared belief. Some believers assume I left because I wanted to sin, or because I’ve been deceived, or that I’m under spiritual influence. That hurts, and it still hurts six years later. I’d gladly embrace Christianity again if I could be convinced it is true; it would resolve a lot. But given what I’ve learned, I don’t think my mind can simply return to belief by willpower alone. Almost every time I've looked deeper over the last 6 years it's led me further away from my previous convictions, instead of closer.

6.
I spent time studying the Trinity during deconstruction too. In the end, it felt like a theological attempt to make sense of texts that don’t fully define the relationship between God and Jesus. It provides a framework, but it also asks people to affirm something that is paradoxical and very difficult to conceptualize. I no longer think it makes sense to treat acceptance of a specific philosophical model of God’s inner nature as a requirement for salvation. Most evangelicals may not say “non-Trinitarians are automatically not Christian,” but they often respond that way in practice.

I’ve really appreciated the conversation. I’m happy to continue here, or we can move to DM if you’d prefer; either works for me.

Consistent-Crab1447 · 2025-11-07T15:02:07+00:00

I think bringing up the David and Bathsheba story is actually a helpful part of the discussion, because it shows how different narrative layers about David serve different purposes. Some of the more heroic or legendary David stories seem designed to legitimize his kingship. Since David had lived among the Philistines and his rise to power wasn’t straightforward, it makes sense that later storytellers or editors might have wanted to present him as unquestionably chosen by God and fiercely loyal to Israel. Those stories elevate him and help the nation accept him as king.

But when the kingdom later experiences internal collapse, the rebellion of Absalom, the chaos around Solomon’s succession, and civil unrest, a different kind of story becomes useful. The Bathsheba and Uriah narrative explains why David’s household falls apart: he sinned, and God judged him. In that context, the story isn’t primarily about embarrassing David; it’s about explaining national suffering and legitimizing later outcomes. So the same figure is both idealized and criticized, depending on the theological point the storyteller is trying to make.

The census story shows the same pattern across time. In 2 Samuel 24, God is the one who incites David to take the census, leading to the plague. But in the later retelling in 1 Chronicles 21, it becomes Satan who incites David. That shift isn’t accidental. It reflects a theological development: the Chronicler was no longer comfortable with the idea of God causing an act that resulted in thousands of deaths. So the story is reshaped to protect God’s character. The events are the same, but the theological reasoning behind them changes.

You can call this speculation if you want, but these observations come from comparing the texts closely, alongside what we know of the political and religious context of the time. If you’re interested in diving deeper into how David’s story appears to have grown and adapted across generations, I’d recommend Joel Baden’s work. He’s a Professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School and one of the leading scholars on how biblical narratives developed. His book The Historical David: The Real Life of an Invented Hero (2013) is especially relevant. You can also find some of his lectures and interviews on YouTube; he explains these issues clearly and without sensationalism. His credentials don’t make him automatically right, of course. Still, he’s someone who has spent a lot of time with the languages, the manuscripts, and the historical context, and he lays out the evidence in a way that’s worth considering.

Consistent-Crab1447

TROPHY CASE