Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

[Jaybear]

So you are calling him a liar. Got it.

Have you ever noticed that crooks always assume everyone else is crooked? That cynics always assume everyone else has an angle? And that anti-Mormons always assume everyone else is lying?

The reason for this is simple: it's because, as someone else used to have in their tagline, we don't see others as they are, we see them as we are. You assume that Hammer is exactly as honest as you; since you aren't above fabricating evidence to win an argument, you conclude that he must not be either, right?

There is no reason for anyone to have "totally made this miracle up." Miraculous healings happen, and the the first thought in the minds of the participants is generally not "I'll just nip out and call a reporter."

Regards,

Pahoran

Baiting aside, and this is one of the most nauseatingly offensive posts, I have seen in a long time, I notice that neither you, nor Zak despite expressing criticism of the skeptics, have stepped forward to tell Hammer that you believe him.

In fact I didn't see any of the faithful step up and say they believe Hammer's story.

Sure you believe miracles happen, ergo you believe Hammer "could" be telling the truth. But, being open to the possibility that Hammer is telling the truth, is not the same, and is a long way from saying that you believe hammer.

As for the basis for our cynicism, its not because we skeptics and anti-mormons are inherently dishonest, its because in the entire history of man, there has not been one documented verified miracle. With that premise, why should we accept at face value a faith promoting story told by an anonymous internet poster?

Seriously, tell me you believe hammer, and give me one reason why I should believe Hammer is telling the truth. Just one.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Why not, my Orthodpedic Surgeon sure does?

Can you explain to me how the above - without any other detail - isn't an attempt at 'Argumentum Ad Populum'...?

...and even then a pretty poor one at that, since so far you've only included two people...

I don't mind. It is actually very cool to watch after the first cut. But then I almost became a MD myself.

That's great man. What happenned to change your direction?

..was it to do with your arm?

Why not, I certainly do?

Why don't you see it as evidence of athiesm? I certainly do.

I just made about as good an argument there as you just did... i.e. both are pretty poor.

[Tchild2]

Well, gotta say I'm a bit disappointed that as soon as a thiest states that they saw a 'miraculous' event, the first impulse from some was to accuse them of dishonesty! :/

I never read the intent of posters calling anyone dishonest, but rather, a call for evidence. Anecdotal "miracles" seem to be the only evidence of their existance. The point of this thread is that if a lost limb were to be restored by the power of God, such a miracle would be veriable and objectively proveable. That is why this thread is so important in trying to understand how people can take self confirmation biases to be a miracle and to explain away what is otherwise a statistical probabality; cancer, surviving a steep fall, or other ills or accidents that often claim lives. If miracles do exist, and God does heal, then an amputated or lost limb should be just as easily restored by God as are other miracles where God allegedly intervenes.

Even if we do believe the rare anecdotal affirmations of miraculous restored limbs - Hammer's is the first I have ever heard, then why is God so arbitrarily and whimsically choosing one or two people out of hundreds of thousands worldwide who are missing limbs? Children in war torn countries the world wide who have done nothing more than innocently walk into an old mine field in the course of seeking food or for farming duties are summarily ignored by God?

What kind of God do people worship that selects so arbitrarily, restoring a limb to a nice young man in North America, but ignoring tens of thousands of children in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Laos or wherever land mines have wreaked havoc? Even if theists were right about a few select anecdotal restorations, such an arbitrary and whimsical God makes my skin crawl with disgust, and is a being worthy neither of worship or admiration.

[thesometimesaint]

RenegadeOfPhunk:

While never wanting for patients I never knew Orthopedic Surgeons were all that popular.

I became interested in the medical side of Psychiatric Social Work while in college. I then discovered I was most interested in the psycho-social workings of the human mind. So I droped the Pre-Med and built my career on why people do the things they do.

No. I was injured while trying to save a friend from death or serious injury.

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

In the Parable of the Good Samaritan. God gives us the rule for how we are to treat each other. Now go and do likewise.

[Pahoran]

Baiting aside, and this is one of the most nauseatingly offensive posts, I have seen in a long time,

Then clearly you haven't seen the posts where all the haters join in a great ugly dog-pile of projecting dishonesty onto him. From what source? Given that there is no evidence of dishonesty in his posts, the only possible source comes from the accusers themselves.

I notice that neither you, nor Zak despite expressing criticism of the skeptics, have stepped forward to tell Hammer that you believe him.

In fact I didn't see any of the faithful step up and say they believe Hammer's story.

Sure you believe miracles happen, ergo you believe Hammer "could" be telling the truth. But, being open to the possibility that Hammer is telling the truth, is not the same, and is a long way from saying that you believe hammer.

At the time I wrote the above post, I did not know the source of his information. For all I knew it could have been simple hearsay, which is quite unreliable even when honest people are passing the story around. We now know that he was a participant. Now, I don't know Hammer personally; I don't know him well enough to form an opinion as to his personal credibility. But, given that I have no reason to suppose him to be a liar--and neither do any of the scoundrels who have directly or indirectly accused him of such--I am happy to keep an open mind on the subject and give him the benefit of the doubt.

As for the basis for our cynicism, its not because we skeptics and anti-mormons are inherently dishonest,

Oh yes it is.

For that reason and no other.

its because in the entire history of man, there has not been one documented verified miracle.

Oh yes there have been. Many of them.

With that premise,

Which happens to be false. One of the reasons I find Hammer's story believable is because I have also been a participant in a number of miraculous healings. Naturally I won't be sharing the details here; Matthew 7:6, pearls before atheists, you know.

why should we accept at face value a faith promoting story told by an anonymous internet poster?

Why indeed? I realise that so-called "skeptics" are not at all skeptical--in fact, enormously credulous--about some things, such as their undemonstrated intellectual superiority, such that they regard all believers as "less than" and unworthy to be treated as equals in any dialogue, even when the subject of said dialogue is the believers' own beliefs; but the only way any dialogue can proceed is if you give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Hammer is mistaken about the meaning or the relevance of what he saw, or thinks he saw; then again, maybe he's not, but the only way for any discussion to go forward is if you lot are prepared to start from the position of accepting that your opponents post in good faith. We shouldn't have to prove that to you. Let me emphasise that: we, of all people, shouldn't have to prove that to you, of all people.

Seriously, tell me you believe hammer,

Look, anonymous people on the Internet can claim anything they like. They can falsely claim to have seen plane crashes, or to have met Lee Harvey Oswald, or to have gone to a Rolling Stones concert, and we have no way to check up on their stories.

But let's suppose that someone was to post that they had attended a Test Match. This might be a concept difficult for Americans to grasp; it has to do with playing sports that are also played by other countries, something outside the experience of most Americans, in much the same way as miracles are outside the experience of most atheists. If anyone was to accuse the informant of lying because there ain't no such animal, I could point out that the accusation is unjustified because I myself have attended several such events. I would, however, be unable to vouch for that person having actually attended one, even if it was one I had seen myself, unless I knew him IRL and had sat near him at the venue.

So it is with Hammer. I find his claim to be credible on its face, because it is congruent with my own experience, but I wasn't there; for all I know, he might be making it up.

But I have no basis to assume that he is. And, more importantly, neither do you. Or any of you.

and give me one reason why I should believe Hammer is telling the truth. Just one.

You are proposing a false dilemma. It is not a case of choosing between calling him a liar or swallowing his story uncritically; it is a case of allowing him to post in good faith, without obligating you to accept his understanding of the event as definitive. IOW, to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And why should you do that?

Because that way you can tell your mother that she didn't completely fail to teach you any manners at all.

Will that do?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cacheman]

I witnessed the miracle-- the native members, one of which was the man healed, claimed I was another Mathew Calley.

Urg. Tumuaki's name was Cowley.

Interesting. There used to be a poster here named "Serious". Not only was he a missionary in Hawaii, but he used this same spelling for Cowley. Hammer, by any chance, are you familiar with the former poster called "Serious"?

cacheman

[SleepingWillow]

One of the reasons I find Hammer's story believable is because I have also been a participant in a number of miraculous healings. Naturally I won't be sharing the details here; Matthew 7:6, pearls before atheists, you know.

Two possibilities (both selfish and not mutually exclusive):

1) You actually witnessed a bona-fied miracle and have absolutely no room to doubt it, yet instead of feeding the atheists here spiritually, you just want to dangle a golden carrot.

2) You know your explanation for the alleged miracle would get torn to shreds, and you want to keep the marvelousness of the miracle to yourself so you never have room to doubt its authenticity.

[Tchild2]

Tchild2:

In the Parable of the Good Samaritan. God gives us the rule for how we are to treat each other. Now go and do likewise.

I agree with you Sometimesaint. Do you notice how this advice takes God out of the equation and shows that whatever good that is going to come into the world, is going to have to come from ourselves.

The goodness of one towards another is something I can believe in.

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

I do't see God as being out of the question. Within the context of LDS theology I think it is imparative that we become one like Him.

If our job is to become like God wouldn't it behoove us to do what He asks us to do?

[charity]

sleeping willow, you wrote: "You actually witnessed a bona-fied miracle and have absolutely no room to doubt it, yet instead of feeding the atheists here spiritually, you just want to dangle a golden carrot."

You misunderstand those of us who keep special experiences to ourselves. We don't feel we would be "feeding atheists," as you put it. We think that no matter what is offered, it will be refused, and not just politely but insensitively, derisively, rudely. For instance, one person who posts on this board says he absolutely rejects any supernatural explanation of anything. He won't be "fed." He will take anything offered and come up with some other explanation, even one that seems far fetched, just so he doesn't have to admit that there was the hand of God in it.

[Noggin]

QUOTE(Jaybear @ Dec 20 2006, 09:14 AM)

Baiting aside, and this is one of the most nauseatingly offensive posts, I have seen in a long time,

Pahoran responds: Then clearly you haven't seen the posts where all the haters join in a great ugly dog-pile of projecting dishonesty onto him. From what source? Given that there is no evidence of dishonesty in his posts, the only possible source comes from the accusers themselves.

QUOTE(Jaybear @ Dec 20 2006, 09:14 AM)

As for the basis for our cynicism, its not because we skeptics and anti-mormons are inherently dishonest,

Pahoran responded: Oh yes it is. For that reason and no other.

Look, this is the basis of disbelief for many atheists: Crushed feet do not balloon back into shape under any circumstance. It does not happen. This is no different than the chance we might witness a violation of the law of gravity. Pigs do not levitate. If you said pigs fly, I would call your credibility into question. When people live and base their lives according to physical laws that cannot be broken, and shore their world view up on account of these highly dependable laws, any hearsay of a violation of an unbreakable law of nature automatically falls into suspicion.

No where in that sequence of events does dishonesty on the part of the atheist ever enter into the equation.

Natural laws cannot be violated. If they are, the person claiming such a violation becomes suspicious.

I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.

How would you view a man who claimed he could levitate but wouldn't demonstrate his ability to you? You would not believe him. Yet are YOU somehow dishonest? See how odd your "atheists are dishonest" claim sounds now? Oh Please! In that exact same light, I do not believe in miraculous healings. My honesty or capacity for dishonesty does not have anything to do with it.

It is not my fault that people are fooled into believing the laws of physics can be broken.

QUOTE(Jaybear @ Dec 20 2006, 09:14 AM)

its because in the entire history of man, there has not been one documented verified miracle.

Pahoran responds: Oh yes there have been. Many of them.

You already know my stand on that retort. All "miracles" happen outside the doors of verifying scientific means. There are no x rays of before and after same day 100% healed crushed feet, broken bones and pelvises. Missing are the MRI scans that show, plainly, a thriving tumor one day, and its absence the next. Gone are any stories of amputated limbs completely regenerated.

If miracles did happen, the amputated limb is the perfect place for it to show up.

Charity wrote: You misunderstand those of us who keep special experiences to ourselves. We don't feel we would be "feeding atheists," as you put it. We think that no matter what is offered, it will be refused, and not just politely but insensitively, derisively, rudely.

Any doctor could shut us all up with an X Ray or MRI scan.

Do you know that James Randi has had a million dollars offered to the first person to document a verified paranormal event, UFO occurance, or miraclous healing? This has been offered since 1964.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests.

source: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Noggin

[Yong Xi]

In my wildest dreams I never thought this discussion would last as long as it has. Wow, does this thread have legs!

[Tarski]

In my wildest dreams I never thought this discussion would last as long as it has. Wow, does this thread have legs!

Yeah, I was surprised too but then I think we have hit upon something glaringly obvious that nevertheless must be suppressed or rationalized away. It's a sore spot.

[Zakuska]

Well try getting your legs amputated... you'd be sore too.

[asbestosman]

You're right. I'm also not the one who revealed that it is a wicked and adulterous generation that seeks for signs; Jesus did that.

And I have no reason to conclude, or even suspect, that he was wrong.

But isn't using that information to conclude that someone who seeks signs is wicked and adulterous committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

P1: W & A -> S

P2: S

-----------------------

fallacous C1: W & A

However, given your incredible record for logic (and my respect for you because of it) I rather suspect you're saying something I yet again do not completely comprehend instead of making such an obvious blunder. Most likely I misunderstand something down the road. Frankly, if you had committed said fallacy I'm also surprised that Sleeping Willow didn't call you on it (at least not that I noticed). Perhaps that was your intent? Perhaps I misunderstand the argument.

[William James]

My best answer is God wants human beings to deal with being alive no matter what physical struggles they have. Maybe God has a non-interference plicy with human beings and handicaps. He simple does not get in the way of letting bad things continue with mortals most of the time.

Dale, I believe this is insightful, and I mostly agree. I think choice #3 in the poll also comes close, but is worded in too pointed a way as to make God appear capricious or cruel. I think God does want us to develop faith. Faith will generally only be inspired if there is at least some evidence for its proposition. But if the evidence is so stark and clear as to remove any possible doubt, then it would pretty much take away the need for faith and hinder our spiritual development. Ultimately, I don't know why God chooses to intervene in some circumstances and not in others.

One possible thought: perhaps God nevertheless works miracles in healing amputies, but those miracles are worked through inspiring the intellect of modern science to make it possible to manufacture prosthetic limbs that function very well. I believe much of God's work is through other people who receive inspiration to work good works.

[Mighty Curelom]

ou're right. I'm also not the one who revealed that it is a wicked and adulterous generation that seeks for signs; Jesus did that.

And I have no reason to conclude, or even suspect, that he was wrong.

I think we're all familiar with Pahoran's rhetorical style, but accusing posters of adultery goes beyond mere obnoxiousness. Hiding behind Jesus to sling your insults only makes it worse. An apology is in order.

[Pahoran]

But isn't using that information to conclude that someone who seeks signs is wicked and adulterous committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

P1: W & A -> S

P2: S

-----------------------

fallacous C1: W & A

However, given your incredible record for logic (and my respect for you because of it) I rather suspect you're saying something I yet again do not completely comprehend instead of making such an obvious blunder. Most likely I misunderstand something down the road. Frankly, if you had committed said fallacy I'm also surprised that Sleeping Willow didn't call you on it (at least not that I noticed). Perhaps that was your intent? Perhaps I misunderstand the argument.

I see what you are saying. You understand Jesus as saying something similar to "being wicked and adulterous leads to sign seeking." However, I understand him as saying something closer to:

W & A <-> S

I.e. that those seek signs if and only if they are wicked and adulterous.

For example:

Luke 11: 29

29

[awyatt]

Natural laws cannot be violated. If they are, the person claiming such a violation becomes suspicious.

I don't know what is so hard to understand about that.

There is nothing difficult to understand about that statement. But you must realize something, as well: If a well-educated person living in 1522 (to pick a random year) had seen a TV program, watched a movie, listened to an audio recording, or seen someone talking on a cell phone, the activity would have been "suspicious" for the time and it would have been deemed against natural law. (Chances are good, as well, that the person would have been killed for being a witch.)

Our understanding of natural law and how to utilize those natural laws to our own benefit changes. A God who knows all has, understandably, complete knowledge of those natural laws and how to use them. Should it surprise us that something "miraculous" today may not be regarded as such in the future when the laws upon which the miracle was performed are better understood?

If you prefer a secular way of looking at this, then accept the words of Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

If miracles did happen, the amputated limb is the perfect place for it to show up.

Or so it seems in our limited understanding. As I said near the beginning of this thread, if you want to know why Fred doesn't eat spinach, the best person to ask is Fred. If you want to know why God doesn't do a certain thing, the best person to ask is God. Unless, of course, you don't believe in God, and then you don't really want an answer from the source, but are only seeking to bait those with a different belief system than your own.

-Allen

[Pahoran]

I think we're all familiar with Pahoran's rhetorical style, but accusing posters of adultery goes beyond mere obnoxiousness. Hiding behind Jesus to sling your insults only makes it worse. An apology is in order.

Indeed it is. I look forward to your forthcoming apology for falsely accusing me of "accusing posters of adultery" and "hiding behind Jesus."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mordecai]

But isn't using that information to conclude that someone who seeks signs is wicked and adulterous committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

P1: W & A -> S

P2: S

-----------------------

fallacous C1: W & A

However, given your incredible record for logic (and my respect for you because of it) I rather suspect you're saying something I yet again do not completely comprehend instead of making such an obvious blunder. Most likely I misunderstand something down the road. Frankly, if you had committed said fallacy I'm also surprised that Sleeping Willow didn't call you on it (at least not that I noticed). Perhaps that was your intent? Perhaps I misunderstand the argument.

I think this is an interesting question we have here. Are people who seek signs REALLY wicked and adulterous 100%? What did Jesus mean by this? I think this is worthy of a new thread.

[SleepingWillow]

But isn't using that information to conclude that someone who seeks signs is wicked and adulterous committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent?

P1: W & A -> S

P2: S

-----------------------

fallacous C1: W & A

However, given your incredible record for logic (and my respect for you because of it) I rather suspect you're saying something I yet again do not completely comprehend instead of making such an obvious blunder. Most likely I misunderstand something down the road. Frankly, if you had committed said fallacy I'm also surprised that Sleeping Willow didn't call you on it (at least not that I noticed). Perhaps that was your intent? Perhaps I misunderstand the argument.

I assumed his logic was:

S -> W & A

S

-----------

W & A

The logic is fine but the premise is completely false. In other words, (S -> W & A) -> F

[Deborah]

In my wildest dreams I never thought this discussion would last as long as it has. Wow, does this thread have legs!

We actually agree on something!!

Although the phrase of "having legs" is somehwhat punnish considering the title.

[Deborah]

Urg. Tumuaki's name was Cowley.

Interesting. There used to be a poster here named "Serious".

I've wondered what happened to Serious.

However, if you are implying Hammer is Serious I don't think their styles are the same.