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?

[mms20102]

[Replying to POI in post #49]

Your “God Must Do the Impossible or Nothing” Trap Fails

You’re now backpedaling into a rhetorical cul-de-sac.

Let’s unpack it step-by-step, because at this point, it’s not that I’m misunderstanding you — it’s that you’ve boxed yourself into an untenable standard while pretending you haven’t.

---

1. “Just answer yes or no: Does your God cure incurables?”

A yes/no won’t rescue you — because the question is malformed.

If I say “yes,” you demand limb regrowth on camera.
If I say “no,” you claim divine irrelevance.
In both cases, you’ve rigged the standard by importing your own metric for what counts as “incurable,” “unmistakable,” and “non-human.”

That’s not falsifiability. That’s philosophical entrapment.

You never defined who gets to decide what is beyond “natural law.”

If God uses a mechanism that humans can later describe — is it disqualified? If a prayer precedes a recovery from a terminal diagnosis — is it always coincidence?

If the bar for intervention is that it must never be explainable by any future science, then your demand isn’t epistemology — it’s anti-science.

---

2. “Intervention must be impossible for humans, or it’s not divine”

False dilemma.

Under your rule, if God heals via immune system, surgery, or emotional resilience — it doesn’t count. Why? Because humans can participate.

But scripture — including the very verse you quoted (Qur’an 26:80) — says healing can come through ordinary means, yet remain under divine will. Just like rain falls by cloud formation, but remains a mercy from God (Qur’an 30:48). You want lightning bolts — but sometimes God sends rain.

---

3. “You haven’t proven that God intervenes”

That’s not how burden of proof works.

This thread started with you asserting that prayer is “stuffed-animal logic.” I responded with multi-tradition RCTs showing verifiable, beneficial outcomes from religious prayer/recitation — stronger than silence, stronger than placebo.

You then moved the goalposts:

> “Yes, but show me something no human could ever do.”

That’s not falsification. That’s insulation — for your own atheistic framework. You have no standard by which you would ever admit divine action, even if it occurred.

So let me ask you a yes/no question:

Is there any circumstance under which you would say: “Yes, that outcome must have involved divine intervention”?

If your answer is no — you’ve just admitted your test is rigged.

---

4. “Torah had miracles. Where are they now?”

This is theological bait-and-switch.

Torah also had mass slaughter, kingship via divine command, and cities consumed in fire. Shall we demand all those too? If not, why pick only miracles?

Scripture doesn’t claim miracles happen on-demand. Qur’an 6:109 explicitly states that those who demand miracles “would still not believe.” Why? Because no phenomenon, no matter how grand, convinces a heart that’s already closed.

---

5. Occam’s Razor? You blunted it

Occam’s Razor favors the explanation that accounts for all the data with the fewest assumptions.

I presented peer-reviewed, replicated trials across Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism showing that sacred recitation and prayer improve health metrics.

Theism accounts for this via divine accommodation through natural mechanisms.
You explain it with placebo, coincidence, mass delusion, cultural scripting, and evolutionary artifacts — while ignoring that non-religious controls performed worse.

Occam’s Razor cuts your patchwork, not mine.

---



You’ve said this discussion is about whether God intervenes. But everything you’ve written shows you would never accept divine intervention under any condition — because you require that it be unexplainable *forever*, impossible by nature, and separated from all secondary causes.

That’s not seeking truth. That’s insulating disbelief.

I’m happy to engage again — but only once you define:
1. What counts as a valid, observable intervention?
2. What evidence would make you admit: “Yes, this could be from God”?

Until then, you’re not asking for proof.
You’re asking for a magic trick that cannot exist in a world with logic, continuity, or faith.

Your move.

[POI]

Let’s unpack it step-by-step, because at this point, it’s not that I’m misunderstanding you — it’s that you’ve boxed yourself into an untenable standard while pretending you haven’t.

You can continue to "think" this, but basic logic says otherwise. Here is the entire OP:

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?

1. “Just answer yes or no: Does your God cure incurables?”

A yes/no won’t rescue you — because the question is malformed.

If I say “yes,” you demand limb regrowth on camera.
If I say “no,” you claim divine irrelevance.
In both cases, you’ve rigged the standard by importing your own metric for what counts as “incurable,” “unmistakable,” and “non-human.”

That’s not falsifiability. That’s philosophical entrapment.

LOL! This is not my problem, it's yours. You obviously have no examples to provide, so you instead throw a tantrum. If an infinite God truly intervenes, to cure the deemed "incurable", it would be common knowledge. This is why you must instead issue apologetics excuses, such as, 'god is not a slot machine', or 'god is not a genie in a bottle', or other....

I'm a reasonable guy. Let's investigate claimed 'miraculous recoveries', which are said to have only been resolved by an infinite God. Do you have one to offer?

You never defined who gets to decide what is beyond “natural law.”

I asked you to pick one of the random three I offered, or for you to select another, many responses ago. You never did. Please pick one.

If God uses a mechanism that humans can later describe — is it disqualified? If a prayer precedes a recovery from a terminal diagnosis — is it always coincidence?

If the bar for intervention is that it must never be explainable by any future science, then your demand isn’t epistemology — it’s anti-science.

I'm looking for an example which can be clearly distinguished between humans (vs) a claimed infinite god. Otherwise, it's all really unfalsifiable and debatable.

2. “Intervention must be impossible for humans, or it’s not divine” False dilemma. Under your rule, if God heals via immune system, surgery, or emotional resilience — it doesn’t count. Why? Because humans can participate. But scripture — including the very verse you quoted (Qur’an 26:80) — says healing can come through ordinary means, yet remain under divine will. Just like rain falls by cloud formation, but remains a mercy from God (Qur’an 30:48). You want lightning bolts — but sometimes God sends rain.

3. “You haven’t proven that God intervenes” That’s not how burden of proof works. This thread started with you asserting that prayer is “stuffed-animal logic.” I responded with multi-tradition RCTs showing verifiable, beneficial outcomes from religious prayer/recitation — stronger than silence, stronger than placebo. You then moved the goalposts: > “Yes, but show me something no human could ever do.” That’s not falsification. That’s insulation — for your own atheistic framework. You have no standard by which you would ever admit divine action, even if it occurred.

I'm asking for you to identify where a claimed infinite and intervening God is demonstrated? This is YOUR claim, not mine. This is why it is logical to go after a clearly distinguishable example. Please pick on example, where there is no way humans alone could not have resolved the matter.

Is there any circumstance under which you would say: “Yes, that outcome must have involved divine intervention”?

Yes. A matter of fact, I'll make it very easy for you. Pray, or have anyone pray, for my uncle's cerebral palsy to go away. If it does, I'll then praise Allah immediately. Queue the excuses yet to come

4. “Torah had miracles. Where are they now?” This is theological bait-and-switch. Torah also had mass slaughter, kingship via divine command, and cities consumed in fire. Shall we demand all those too? If not, why pick only miracles?

There is still mass slaughter in the name of god. There is still 'divine command' in the name of god. The only thing which stopped is the supernatural stuff?.?.?.?

Scripture doesn’t claim miracles happen on-demand.

Do they EVER happen at ALL?

1. What counts as a valid, observable intervention?
2. What evidence would make you admit: “Yes, this could be from God”?

Addressed above.

[mms20102]

[Replying to POI in post #52]

The Cerebral Palsy Challenge and the Pedophile Question Fallacy

You’ve now pushed the discussion into the zone of logical abuse. Let’s pull it back to clarity.

---

1. Your “yes or no” question is a classic fallacy

> “Does your God ever cure incurable conditions—yes or no?”

That’s not a fair question. It’s a loaded trap — like asking:

“Have you stopped being a pedophile — yes or no?”

Any binary answer presumes guilt, or in this case, cedes to your hidden assumptions:
• That we agree on what counts as “incurable”
• That any non-instantaneous recovery is invalid
• That divine action must bypass all natural causes to count
• That “miraculous” = public, repeatable, medically uncontestable

This is not epistemology. It’s courtroom theatrics.

---

2. You demand a God intervention that is utterly human-proof. Then mock the absence of it.

> “If an infinite God truly intervenes… it would be common knowledge.”
By that standard, nothing in history counts unless it’s televised, peer-reviewed, and irreducibly supernatural. You dismiss anything that might be God, because humans could be involved. But then you turn around and say: “Why hasn’t God done anything we can all see?”

That’s circular. Your test is unpassable by design.

---

3. The “pray for my uncle” challenge fails its own logic

You’ve given your test: “If my uncle’s cerebral palsy is cured, I’ll believe.”

What if tomorrow, a spontaneous remission occurs? Would you say: “Yes, that was God”? Or would you say “misdiagnosis, placebo, coincidence, brain plasticity, etc.”?

Be honest.

Because if your standard is:
> “God must do something that cannot ever be explained by any conceivable natural process,”

Then your position is not falsifiable. You’ve made it intellectually safe, but logically useless.

---

4. Supernatural claims didn’t stop. Your attention span did.

You claimed: “Only the supernatural stopped. Mass slaughter and divine command continue.”

False. Reports of miracles still exist globally:
• Spontaneous remissions from terminal illnesses
• Immediate cures following mass prayer (e.g., in African, South Asian, Middle Eastern revivals)
• Near-death experiences reported across cultures with consistent metaphysical patterns

You reject them not because they don’t exist — but because you’ve decided they can’t be divine.

---

5. My claim has always been modest, yours is extreme

I never claimed:
> “God always cures incurables.”
Or
> “Prayer always leads to limb regrowth.”

My claim was:
> “Sacred recitation and prayer measurably improve human outcomes — across faiths, beyond placebo — and are consistent with divine care expressed through ordinary mechanisms.”

Your reply?
> “If your God doesn’t do magic tricks on my terms, He doesn’t exist.”

---

6. A final question — let’s flip the burden fairly

Let’s suppose:
• A child was born with a terminal tumor.
• All doctors gave 2 weeks to live.
• Family prayed.
• Tumor vanished on MRI. No treatment. No recurrence.

Would you say: “That could be God”?

If the answer is “no,” then stop pretending you're open to evidence.
If the answer is “yes,” then you just admitted that prayer can show divine action.

So I’ll answer yours when you answer mine. Otherwise, we’re just playing logical dodgeball with sacred questions.

Your move.

[POI]

You’ve now pushed the discussion into the zone of logical abuse. Let’s pull it back to clarity.

"logical abuse" ='s you being backed into your own given proverbial "cul-de-sac."

1. Your “yes or no” question is a classic fallacy > “Does your God ever cure incurable conditions—yes or no?” That’s not a fair question. It’s a loaded trap — like asking: “Have you stopped being a pedophile — yes or no?”

It's a very fair question. You claim your god is infinite. You also claim your god sometimes intervenes. You further claim god leaves 'evil' in the world to test humans. All these conditions are "evil", which is why many pray not to have them. The OT claims god performs Bonafide 'miracles.' Long ago, this intervening god helped/hurt folks, who both requested it, and not, by applying Bonafide "miracles". Not-so-much anymore?.?.?

Any binary answer presumes guilt, or in this case, cedes to your hidden assumptions:
• That we agree on what counts as “incurable”
• That any non-instantaneous recovery is invalid
• That divine action must bypass all natural causes to count
• That “miraculous” = public, repeatable, medically uncontestable

This is not epistemology. It’s courtroom theatrics.

Let's harken back to the CABG vs pregnancy debate. Seems god is sometimes more resistant to helping CABG patients but is sometimes more receptive to helping pregnant patients. You see how it is unfalsifiable and debatable? This is why we must instead select an unfalsifiable and undebatable topic. Otherwise, anyone can insert any deity of their choosing. without actual falsification.

2. You demand a God intervention that is utterly human-proof. Then mock the absence of it.

> “If an infinite God truly intervenes… it would be common knowledge.”
By that standard, nothing in history counts unless it’s televised, peer-reviewed, and irreducibly supernatural. You dismiss anything that might be God, because humans could be involved. But then you turn around and say: “Why hasn’t God done anything we can all see?”

That’s circular. Your test is unpassable by design.

I do not claim "infinite" anything, as it related to fallibility. I also do not claim "omni" anything. However, you claim an infinite and omni god exists. How am I logically supposed to conclude that the only possible intervention could have been from an infinite god, if you cannot provide one example?

3. The “pray for my uncle” challenge fails its own logic You’ve given your test: “If my uncle’s cerebral palsy is cured, I’ll believe.” What if tomorrow, a spontaneous remission occurs? Would you say: “Yes, that was God”? Or would you say “misdiagnosis, placebo, coincidence, brain plasticity, etc.”? Be honest.

I was honest. You are stalling. You asked me for an example. I gave you one. And now you are back-peddling. Tsk tsk...

Because if your standard is: > “God must do something that cannot ever be explained by any conceivable natural process,” Then your position is not falsifiable. You’ve made it intellectually safe, but logically useless.

Nope. Countless requests are made to cure the incurable. Many conditions are deemed incurable. God apparently skips all of them. I gave you just one, and the back-peddling has already begun, even after you asked me for one. So, continue to queue the apologetics. We will all read as you continue to expose the failure of your belief system.

4. Supernatural claims didn’t stop. Your attention span did. You claimed: “Only the supernatural stopped. Mass slaughter and divine command continue.”

False. Reports of miracles still exist globally:
• Spontaneous remissions from terminal illnesses
• Immediate cures following mass prayer (e.g., in African, South Asian, Middle Eastern revivals)
• Near-death experiences reported across cultures with consistent metaphysical patterns

You reject them not because they don’t exist — but because you’ve decided they can’t be divine.

Your analogy immediately fails because the natural stuff still happens daily. And yet, you continue to avoid producing one example of a miraculous recovery. which could ONLY have been produced by a claimed infinite god.

5. My claim has always been modest, yours is extreme

No! Your claim is not modest. You claim an infinite intervening god exists. My claim is asking to prove that GOD intervenes. Thus far, you are focused on reduced pain, and lower hospital stays, and that prayer helps. Well, prayer, along with Lamaze, can both 'help'. But how do we know if God also had a hand in the matter?

6. A final question — let’s flip the burden fairly

Let’s suppose:
• A child was born with a terminal tumor.
• All doctors gave 2 weeks to live.
• Family prayed.
• Tumor vanished on MRI. No treatment. No recurrence.

Would you say: “That could be God”?

I already spoke about this. Let's pick an example which does not hinge upon a possible false MD Dx as the skeptic's pushback. I'm actually trying to steelman your position by pre-selecting a position in which the skeptic cannot later redact. This is why I initially selected Downs syndrome, amputation, cerebral palsy, or other. Any LAYMAN can diagnose these findings.

So I’ll answer yours when you answer mine. Otherwise, we’re just playing logical dodgeball with sacred questions.

LOL! No, you are backed into a corner. You have been proverbially pinned. The topic is kaput. But it will be fun to continue reading your apologetic excuses.

[mms20102]

[Replying to POI in post #54]



At this point, your debate posture isn’t just predictable — it’s mathematically recursive:
Move goalpost → reject answer → accuse of dodging → repeat.

[POI]

[Replying to mms20102 in post #55]

If you look at my OP, you will see how you are issuing nothing but a strawman. Couple this with your given apologetics, and it's obvious you have clearly lost the debate.

Anywho, ta ta, for now...

[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.

Then how come God never intervenes to cure the incurable?

Marke: I see no indication that God intends to cure anyone of impending death supposedly caused by natural selection.

[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?

Marke: I see no indication that God intends to cure anyone of impending death supposedly caused by natural selection.

Please recall what you stated above in bold red.

I see three problems with your statement, and then your follow up statement in bold black.

1) Seems prayer requests to God are pointless, as they are only 'answered' if they already align with his will?
2) Humble Christians never pray for God to remove an incurable condition/affliction/disease/other?
3) Then why does he always ignore prayer requests to remove unwanted incurable conditions in which do not cause death, like someone born with down's syndrome?

[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.

Then how come God never intervenes to cure the incurable?

Marke: I see no indication that God intends to cure anyone of impending death supposedly caused by natural selection.

Please recall what you stated above in bold red.

I see three problems with your statement, and then your follow up statement in bold black.

1) Seems prayer requests to God are pointless, as they are only 'answered' if they already align with his will?

Marke: God is not controlled by humans. He commands them to pray and expect Him to hear, but He does not guarantee He will always answer their prayers in the way they want. However, God sometimes grants prayer requests that are not proper, as in this passage:

Psalm 106:15
And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.


2) Humble Christians never pray for God to remove an incurable condition/affliction/disease/other?

Marke: Humble Christians pray for deliverance from trouble but, like Jesus, pray also for God's will to be done whether or not the result will bring them suffering .

Luke 22:42
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

3) Then why does he always ignore prayer requests to remove unwanted incurable conditions in which do not cause death, like someone born with down's syndrome?

Marke: God does not always work in ways humans think are the only right ways.

John 9:1-3
King James Version
9 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

[POI]

God is not controlled by humans. He commands them to pray and expect Him to hear, but He does not guarantee He will always answer their prayers in the way they want. However, God sometimes grants prayer requests that are not proper, as in this passage:

Okay? So exactly how do humans know if/when God ever actually answers?

Humble Christians pray for deliverance from trouble but, like Jesus, pray also for God's will to be done whether or not the result will bring them suffering .

Well, if a humble Christians prays for cerebral palsy or downs syndrome to be removed, does your claimed God ever removed these unwanted afflictions?

God does not always work in ways humans think are the only right ways.

See above.