So here we are, two words into your latest "proof", and already we come up against another case of "required definition" (one of the main problems when dealing with "personal opinions"). In what way exactly, are you using the word "fact"? As you can clearly see below from the included "Wikipedia" excerpt, there exist several definitions of that word, depending on the context in which it is found. Now we've already, in the earlier parts of this work, ascertained your personal difficulties in remaining in context when dealing with someone else's writing, so maybe, after we take a quick look at the "Wikipedia" entry, I could offer my services in helping you to determine the context of your own writing. In the following Wikipedia excerpt, all cases of emphasis are my own.
Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. This use is found in such phrases as, It is a fact that the cup is blue or Matter of fact,[3] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."
Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.[8] This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").[9]
Facts may be checked by reason, experiment, personal experience, or may be argued from authority. Roger Bacon wrote,
"If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics."[10]"
Now you may claim you are utilizing the word "fact" in any one, or more, of the looser forms allowed for in the above definitions, but I would have to point out that that would not appear to be true. I suggest that there is only one of the multiple definitions that you can claim to be making use of, and that is the definition I have highlighted in red. My reason for this statement is very simple; the title of your "proof". Within that title, you suggest that we "Statistically analyze prayer".
The word "statistically" is the adverbial form of the word "statistical'" which means quite simply "pertaining to statistics", and in turn, the word "statistics" is defined as, "the branch of mathematics that deals with the organization, analysis, collection, and interpretation of statistical data[1]" If you are in fact claiming to "statistically" analyze prayer, you have placed yourself outside the realm of opinion, and into the realm of the scientific (mathematics is a scientific discipline), which restricts you to using the more limited, and precise meaning of the word "fact", that I have highlighted in the "Wikipedia" definition previously given. Your own stated words are, "The fact is, God never answers any prayers" and in addition to that you make claim to the idea that the concept of "answered prayer" is an "illusion".
So now, the onus is on you, to prove your statements of "fact". Otherwise, your opening statement fails, and takes your entire "proof" with it. On the other hand, all I have to do, is prove that your opening comment is not completely accurate, thus reducing it to a matter of opinion, not fact , and once again, your "proof" fails. And remember, you specifically said, "God never answers any prayer." So now, it's time to look closer at what you have offered in support of your statements of supposed "fact".
You make the claim that the concept of "answered prayer" is nothing but an "illusion", and state that this can be proved by scientific experiment. You then, once again, suggest the same method that you suggested in "Proof #1" (which means that this is not a second proof at all, only a re-working of the first). Well, I have already shown in my rebuttal of that previous suggestion, sufficient reason why that method simply will not work, and there is no reason to state those views all over again. So let us try this from a different angle, and concentrate on your claim of ability to prove anything by scientific experiment.
To start with, let us take a look at the views of those who apparently know a lot more about the "scientific method" and its limitations than you do. The following excerpt is a simple one, taken from an internet article, which you can peruse by following the given link:
"...In fact, all scientific theories are unprovable...".
The author of this particular site is apparently a man of science, stating a simple truth (or at least his opinion of the truth). The excerpt that follows, on the other hand, is in itself a reasonable question, presumably from a man of faith, and once again you can follow the link to read it for yourself.
"If science can't even disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God?" - Gregory Koukl.
The author of the site in question, also states in the same article,
"...In fact, all scientific theories are unprovable...".
The author of this particular site is apparently a man of science, stating a simple truth (or at least his opinion of the truth). The excerpt that follows, on the other hand, is in itself a reasonable question, presumably from a man of faith, and once again you can follow the link to read it for yourself.
"If science can't even disprove the existence of unicorns, how can it disprove the existence of God?" - Gregory Koukl.
The author of the site in question, also states in the same article,
Just to show you how far I can take this idea, consider this. Suppose it was the intention of an individual such as yourself to prove to me by experimentation, that the active (turned on) element on a stove-top was "hot". They further add, they can prove this in a number of experimental ways including the following. A thermometer placed in contact with the element would easily show a high temperature, which is the accepted definition of hot. To which I answer, "No, that is an incorrect assumption, since what it really shows is that the temperature is higher than what might be considered cold by some. But "hot", and "higher", are relative terms. That element is far colder than the surface of the sun for instance, or even burning phosphorous. Therefore, it is only "hot" in comparison to certain other things.
Alright, they tell me, then it can be substantiated by having some brave individual actually touch it, and they will surely report that it is hot. To which I answer yet again, "No, that is another incorrect assumption, which I, in this case can attempt to prove, by referring them to the following quote from yet another internet article (to which I have also provided the link).
To these individuals, owing to their absence of extreme sensation, the element would appear to be neutral in its relation to hot or not hot. And remember, these people still have some concept of hot and cold. For instance, they would still be able to tell the difference between warm and cool weather conditions, since those conditions are usually not severe enough to elicit from the offended nerve-endings, a pain response. To support this specific claim, I refer you again to another quote from the same article as that which is offered above.
So in the end, it would seem that the only thing that can be said for sure is that "hot", like "cold", and virtually every other sensation you can name, is never a matter of "fact", but one of "perception". And perception varies with the individual. All that can really be stated in this case is that a stove-top element is at many times going to be perceived as hot, but not in all cases, or by all individuals. Thus, "hot" becomes a matter of personal opinion, that depends entirely on the context in which it exists, and it cannot be called "fact", in the sense of something that seeks to be as exact as science. And that is where we will pick this up tomorrow.
