Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

[cacheman]

I've wondered what happened to Serious.

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

I'll let Hammer answer that, but yes I suspect they are one and the same.

cacheman

[Noggin]

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.)

Excellent point, awyatt. But put the viewing of TV in the year 1522 in current 2006 context. The only way to do it is to assume the person watching TV in 1522 cannot prove he watched it to objective 3rd parties.

2006: Where are the before and after conclusive and clear Xrays and MRI's? They are not.

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?

Yes yes, I know what you are saying. But I am not asking for things we don't understand. We understand full well that bones break, tumors form and that we can track and observe them. Never has a bone broken, been clearly xrayed as such and then healed "overnight" or some other form of miraculous time table... verified by subsequent xrays.

All I ask is that we acknowledge this, and then the thread is dead. Amputees do not regenerate limbs. Broken bones do not heal over night. Very simple stuff.

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."

Red herring. Where is the mainstream medical journal entry describing the "miracles"? Not found. First give me a regenerated limb or an overnight healed broken bone (verified by x ray) and then we can discuss Authur C. Clarke's advanced technology that produced it.

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. I think I am very clear as to why I am still posting to this thread. Baiting is not the reason.

Noggin

[awyatt]

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. I think I am very clear as to why I am still posting to this thread. Baiting is not the reason.

You are also not the one who posed the question of why God does or doesn't do something. I believe that the statement applies quite aptly to the person who posed the original question.

-Allen

[grego]

God cannot heal amputees, he's never done it...that is reference enough.

Are you serious? Someone please explain to me why this is logical.

The topic question is no different from any of the other "show me" questions. It doesn't matter what the question is. It is all in the denial of the need for faith. We could just as easily ask why doesn't Moroni come back with the golden plates and go on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace. Silly children.

Pretty much, yes.

[Ralph Man]

Are you serious? Someone please explain to me why this is logical.

The reasoning would go something like this:

A benevolent being will prevent suffering when they have the ability to do so and there is no risk to themselves and no greater harm will obtain from their actions

In at least some instances of a missing limb, regenerating it will prevent suffering and no greater harm will obtain from doing so.

God is benevolent

Therefore, if God could regenerates limbs, God would in at least some instances.

God exists.

Limbs do not regenerate.

Therefore, God cannot regenerate limbs.

The fact that the believer thinks God does intervene in many instances to relieve suffering (even if only in response to priesthood powers) really shores up the weak points of the argument. That limbs don't get regenerated is convienently arbitrary.

P.S. When someone asks "Why does God do X" sometimes they are really asking, "Why are you proposing inchorant, monsterous, inconsistent, etc things about this hypothetical being? Does it make sense to believe in or worship such a thing?" And a reponse like "Why don't you ask God?" becomes highly misguided. The whole point of the problem here is the lack of limb regeneration casts a dubious light on the idea that God exists as you propose him to. Asking "why don't limbs regenerate?" is simply a test of the internal and external consistency of the belief that there exists a diety who is intervening in human affairs to cure ailments.

[Vex]

Story (Validity may be called into question if you want, but it still has meaning): While serving in Ventura California I ran into a body gaurd and was able to have a very pleasent conversation with him. He itterated an account that happend to a friend of his and this also why he was having trouble with God at the moment. He knew a man in the security business who was looking for decesnt labor as a body gaurd or a police officer. Then a break came; he would be a body gaurd to a singer. it required him to leave his family for long periods of time, travel abroad in a private jet, attend functions and parties that would no doubt be immoral behavior going on. two or three days before he was to take the job he suffers an accident and falls off his roof while doing some work, cleaning the gutters if i'm remembering correctly. he went to the hosipital unable to feel his extremities. as the doctors came and told his wife he would be confined to a wheel chair. he will no longer be able to take the dream job to which he was aspiring and so close to attaining. to some it seems that that man was delt a crappy hand from God.

yet as i thought about that story i wondered what would have happend if he didn't suffer that injury. would he have commited adultry? commited some heinous sin and left his family? been shot in the line of duty and caused morbid distress upon his wife and children? perhaps... no one knows. but sometimes misfortune like pyralsis or amputated limbs could be the lesser pains ones felt in life. that we may at some point in life learn more than we ever could before. or like zions camp attendee may atest to "we became aquainted with God in our extremities." I don't think amputees or that much further off.

Part of them isn't visible anymore but they still have "Ghost pain". feeling from a long departed limb. I believe they're just getting aquainted.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I never read the intent of posters calling anyone dishonest, but rather, a call for evidence.

Fair point. Double-checking the replies, most did actually make a straight request for evidence.

There was - though - one clear call of dishonestly:

I implore you to air it out, man. You totally made that miracle up.

So I'll reduce my statement of 'some' to 'one'.

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.

Don't worry Tchild2, I probably feel exactly the same way you do about the implications of the question in the OP. No need to preach to the choir

My only point in regards to 'dishonestly' was - there is no need to reach for the 'liar liar, pants on fire' card to make the above point.

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?

Exactly. We must also consider that even Hammer's fairly extreme example still doesn't technically count as a miraculous healing of an amputation...

If what was described did happen, it was a miraculous restoration of a 'crushed' limb. It may have avoided an amputaion, but it wasn't a miracle that 'undone' an amputation.

That is relavent to the question.

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.

I totally agree.

I wonder if some thiests would consider it even worse form (on my part) to know that - even if I saw a miracle and would essentially forced me to consider the existence of something like the Biblical God - that wouldn't nessesarily mean I'd decide it right to worship such a being...?

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

Heh - fair enough! Good job I didn't say you were making an Argumentum Ad Populum of any significance then

And since even significant Argumentum Ad Populum arguments don't have much merit (at least imo), I'm not really sure where you were hoping to go on this point...

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.

Cool. I did a similar switch at university. Dead set on being a sound engineer, but switched to software when I realised I coudln't stand musicians!

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

I take my hat off to you sir.

[grego]

Noggin,

You're right on. But I don't see how:

God cannot heal amputees, he's never done it...that is reference enough.

Yes, I pretty much understand the reasoning, I think. (I appreciate the fleshing out, Ralph Man.) It's just based on lots and lots of assumptions, limited thinking, and arrogance (intentional or not).

"Because no one I know has seen God heal an amputee, that means that he is incapable of doing so." "Therefore, no other proof is needed." Huh??

"Since God cannot heal an amputee, it stands that he is a worthless god, or else... he does not exist."

"Therefore, it is pointless to worship him, or ask him--even if many others give different opinions based on their personal experience."

Reminds me of:

"Because I have never seen a black swan, but I have seen a white swan, therefore black swans cannot exist. If God were powerful, he would also make black swans. Since he cannot, he is either incapable, or he does not exist..."

Oh, it seems to be a good question--like lots of other questions. They all point to the big question, which even PoE is a part of: what is the relationship between God and man, heavenly and earthly, in this life; and why?:http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=20463

which boiled down to a very extreme POV--yet the one basically being asked--If God existed, how could our lives be anything less than celestial? Why any pain, any problems, any imperfections, etc.?

Here are some basic takes:

God must be perfect. (According to which interpretation/ whose standard?)

Anything in his realm that is outside of perfect pleasure and joy and happiness is not from him. (According to whose standard, and why?)

Anything in his realm must be from him. (Why?)

Thus, God cannot exist. (??)

Or...

God must be all-powerful. (According to which interpretation/ whose standard?)

If evil exists, it comes from God or God cannot control it. (no other options? Why must it be one of these two?)

If God could control it, but doesn't do so according to my intelligence/ standards/ desires/ interpretations, God is not intelligent.

If God cannot control it, he is not all-powerful. If he could but doesn't, he's not intelligent and a bad man.

Therefore, God cannot exist, or to worship him would be stupid and bad.

And so forth.

To see how it also works, think of substituting lots of other things, esp. if you can find "opposing situations/ problems": Why the BoM translation process with God's involvement that produced less than celestial results? Why plates at all, when the book of Moses was done without anything? Why U&T, then just a stone? Why not perfect prophets, and perfect words from prophets mouths all the time? Why not ...

[awyatt]

One thing that disbelievers haven't grappled with is the thought that perhaps it is OK with God if our bodies aren't perfect. To their way of thinking, life would definitely be easier with two arms and hands, so a benevelent God should make sure that, at least in some instances, people have two arms and hands.

But why stop there? Life would be easier still if people had four arms and hands. Or x-ray vision. (Just think--we could confirm our own miracles! <g>) Or higher IQs. Or longer arms. Or ability to also breathe underwater. Or...

The list goes on and on. There are many things that we could say would make life easier, and thereby wonder why a benevolent God didn't supply them. And, by extension, because He didn't supply them, He must either be non-benevolent or He doesn't exist.

Sorry, folks. It doesn't work that way. I'll keep coming back to the only real answer--if you want to know why God doesn't heal amputees (or provide four arms and hands, or provide higher IQs, or x-ray vision, etc.), then you'll have to ask God. He's the one in charge; it is HIS decision, not ours.

If you don't believe in God, fine. But a non-believer asking "why doesn't God heal amputees since doing so would show He loves us and would make life easier" is tantamount to asking "why doesn't Santa Clause bring everyone a jet-powered scooter because doing so would show he loves us and would make life easier." The person doing the asking doesn't believe in either being and doesn't expect a satisfactory answer, so one must wonder what the purpose is in asking. The only reasonable answer to that question is that the questioner only wants to bait others, not to understand something he/she already categorically rejects.

-Allen

[AlwaysThinking]

One thing that disbelievers haven't grappled with is the thought that perhaps it is OK with God if our bodies aren't perfect. To their way of thinking, life would definitely be easier with two arms and hands, so a benevelent God should make sure that, at least in some instances, people have two arms and hands.

But why stop there? Life would be easier still if people had four arms and hands. Or x-ray vision. (Just think--we could confirm our own miracles! <g>) Or higher IQs. Or longer arms. Or ability to also breathe underwater. Or...

The list goes on and on. There are many things that we could say would make life easier, and thereby wonder why a benevolent God didn't supply them. And, by extension, because He didn't supply them, He must either be non-benevolent or He doesn't exist.

Sorry, folks. It doesn't work that way. I'll keep coming back to the only real answer--if you want to know why God doesn't heal amputees (or provide four arms and hands, or provide higher IQs, or x-ray vision, etc.), then you'll have to ask God. He's the one in charge; it is HIS decision, not ours.

If you don't believe in God, fine. But a non-believer asking "why doesn't God heal amputees since doing so would show He loves us and would make life easier" is tantamount to asking "why doesn't Santa Clause bring everyone a jet-powered scooter because doing so would show he loves us and would make life easier." The person doing the asking doesn't believe in either being and doesn't expect a satisfactory answer, so one must wonder what the purpose is in asking. The only reasonable answer to that question is that the questioner only wants to bait others, not to understand something he/she already categorically rejects.

-Allen

[banging head against wall]

I think you have just proven to me that this whole thread has been worthless (although I have enjoyed reading it) and that you have absolutely NO idea what it really going on inside the head of a nonbeliever.

Do you really think that it boils down to the fact that nonbelievers are mad at God for not making life easier with miracles? LOL. Do you really think that?

[/banging head against wall]

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

One thing that disbelievers haven't grappled with is the thought that perhaps it is OK with God if our bodies aren't perfect. To their way of thinking, life would definitely be easier with two arms and hands, so a benevelent God should make sure that, at least in some instances, people have two arms and hands.

But why stop there? Life would be easier still if people had four arms and hands. Or x-ray vision. (Just think--we could confirm our own miracles! <g>) Or higher IQs. Or longer arms. Or ability to also breathe underwater. Or...

Oh - their's no need to get as fantastical as that.

...how about not making the 'breathing' tube the same as the 'eating' tube, so that thousands upon thousands of children didn't choke whilst doing nothing more than trying to feed themselves?!

...if I designed a car where the engine attempted to intake fuel AND air down literally the same tube, and ended up causing thousands upon thousands of failures because of that 'design desision', I'd expect to get sacked.

But of course, none of the above is on topic. The question asked wasn't 'Why does God allow imperfection in this world.' I would accept that question could well directly relate to the PoE.

But the question actually asked was a different one. And the difference is of a 'practical' nature.

And moreoever, this point has been conceeded by a few on the thiest side of the argument!

Oh - and for the record, I've had a perfectly logical and reasonable answer from the thiest side, that I accept and respect. Look for answers from people like Homestar Runner and johndoe for reference...

The list goes on and on. There are many things that we could say would make life easier, and thereby wonder why a benevolent God didn't supply them. And, by extension, because He didn't supply them, He must either be non-benevolent or He doesn't exist.

Again, not the question asked.

If (potentially, as proposed in this thread), God seems willing to make life at least a BIT easier by ballooning a person's crushed foot back to normal, why is it that he (apparently, according to the evidence) never sees the need to restore an amputated limb .via miraculous means?

Why does the one case exist (at least as an eye-witness report), and not the other?

It's a practical question.

Sorry, folks. It doesn't work that way. I'll keep coming back to the only real answer--if you want to know why God doesn't heal amputees (or provide four arms and hands, or provide higher IQs, or x-ray vision, etc.), then you'll have to ask God. He's the one in charge; it is HIS decision, not ours.

Until I get the chance to ask God (notwithstanding the many messengers who 'claim' to speak for him...), I'll continue to make my best guess, in an effort to best discern the most likely 'truth', and hence to live my life accordingly.

You seem to have a theory based around the PoE.

I have potentially much simpler theory - that this 'God' doesn't actually exist.

I don't pretend to know whether I'm right or wrong. But to say I just 'don't get it' is nothing more than an attempted dodge.

If you don't believe in God, fine. But a non-believer asking "why doesn't God heal amputees since doing so would show He loves us and would make life easier"

Once more with feeling - that's not the question being asked.

The actual question being asked is 'Considering all the other reported 'miracles' apparently attributed to God, why is 'restoring an amputed limb' apparently not on the list?'

is tantamount to asking "why doesn't Santa Clause bring everyone a jet-powered scooter because doing so would show he loves us and would make life easier."

Not really, a more analogous question would be:

'Why does Santa only ever seem to get kids presents that their parents can reasonably afford?!'

The person doing the asking doesn't believe in either being and doesn't expect a satisfactory answer, so one must wonder what the purpose is in asking.

I know my reason for asking - because I like to double-check my assumptions about the world.

But feel free to make up any other reason you like on my account, if you feel the need to.

The only reasonable answer to that question is that the questioner only wants to bait others, not to understand something he/she already categorically rejects.

If that assumption works for you, all power to ya.

[Noggin]

Noggin,

You're right on. But I don't see how:

Noggin writes: God cannot heal amputees, he's never done it...that is reference enough.

Yes, I pretty much understand the reasoning, I think. (I appreciate the fleshing out, Ralph Man.) It's just based on lots and lots of assumptions, limited thinking, and arrogance (intentional or not).

"Because no one I know has seen God heal an amputee, that means that he is incapable of doing so." "Therefore, no other proof is needed." Huh??

"Since God cannot heal an amputee, it stands that he is a worthless god, or else... he does not exist."

"Therefore, it is pointless to worship him, or ask him--even if many others give different opinions based on their personal experience."

Well? Hm. I say that since god cannot heal an amputee, it stands that the dealings of god in other healing capacities should be more closely examined by carte blanche theists. My next reply also satisfies Allen's explanation when he wrote:

One thing that disbelievers haven't grappled with is the thought that perhaps it is OK with God if our bodies aren't perfect. To their way of thinking, life would definitely be easier with two arms and hands, so a benevelent God should make sure that, at least in some instances, people have two arms and hands.

So here I think we are (finally) approaching the light at the end of the tunnel. I now see that it's been a lack of communication on my part all along.

perhaps it is OK with God if our bodies aren't perfect.

That does not hold up, Allen. "Healings" are being claimed far and wide throughout Mormonism and many other religions every day. Cancer remissions, coma patients reviving... you know the drill. My point remains to counter your claim that "perhaps it is OK with God if our bodies aren't perfect". "God" is very interested in the afflicted. You theists claim he/she/it heals them every day. So then, that leaves the amputee a picked on, red headed step child in your god's eyes. God hates amputees. He will not heal them.

Limbs do not regenerate. Broken bones do not heal themselves over night, destroyed eyeballs do not come back to functionality, and so on. The concept of any god does not perform these action items. Annoyingly, the cancer remissions, coma revivals, disappearing migraines, fast healing influenzas, lost car keys, found (and desperately needed) choice mall parking spots, and a host of other random coincidentals all get attributed to the god fog.

Even when a theist is confronted with the flip side of this argument... or perhaps it's just a parallel argument, the argument of unprevented evil, the theist will not back down.

God can do amazing things. He helps Aunt Millie find her car keys and that choice (read: desperately needed) mall parking space. But does he/she/it also help the Hutu pillager find that last 8 year boy who is desperately hiding from the thwacking strokes of the machete busily carving up his family? Where is god there? Is god there? God can do so many things, apparantly. So many miraculous things. Yet he cannot, I guess, either inspire the boy where to hide so that he won't be found, or temporarily distract the pillager so that the machete hacking will cease.

I know, I know... oh so dramatic, Noggin.... leave us alone with your theatrics, Noggin... but if you claim god can heal cancer patients and coma victims, and claim god's presence, you then are duty bound to examine the world around you and size this god thing up for real.

If you do not, aren't you just living in a confirmation biased bubble? Why or why not?

Noggin

**edited to make 2 of my remarks just a little more PC

[awyatt]

[banging head against wall]

I think you have just proven to me that this whole thread has been worthless (although I have enjoyed reading it) and that you have absolutely NO idea what it really going on inside the head of a nonbeliever.

Do you really think that it boils down to the fact that nonbelievers are mad at God for not making life easier with miracles? LOL. Do you really think that?

[/banging head against wall]

Nope. Don't think that at all. However, if you read back through the non-believers' comments in this thread, you'll see that an underlying sentiment is what a benevolent God should do. I'm just saying that such determinations are not ours to make--they are His.

(Hope your head doesn't hurt. <g>)

-Allen

[Tarski]

One thing that disbelievers haven't grappled with is the thought that perhaps it is OK with God if our bodies aren't perfect. To their way of thinking, life would definitely be easier with two arms and hands, so a benevelent God should make sure that, at least in some instances, people have two arms and hands.

But why stop there? Life would be easier still if people had four arms and hands. Or x-ray vision. (Just think--we could confirm our own miracles! <g>) Or higher IQs. Or longer arms. Or ability to also breathe underwater. Or...

This strikes me as insensitive. Amputees want to be whole and normal. To compare this to a wish for high IQ or superpowers is absurd. I person with a normal IQ and no X-ray vision is not a sad state of afairs deserving of mercy.

But this is beside the point. There are certain kinds of medical conditions that can be overcome in a way that only seems miraculous (remission etc.). These could be mistaken for act of God.

Call these type A conditions.

Then there are conditions that could not just seem to be miraculous but are so overt that nothing could just appear to be a healing. This like the amputee situation. Call these type B.

Now the theory that there is no God predicts (without excuse or elaboration) that only type A healings will occur but never type B under documented and controlled situations.

This prediction is, so far, consistent with observation. A big point for the "no God" theory.

[thesometimesaint]

RenegadeOfPhunk:

"...if I designed a car where the engine attempted to intake fuel AND air down literally the same tube, and ended up causing thousands upon thousands of failures because of that 'design desision', I'd expect to get sacked."

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question377.htm

[Lachoneus]

The question is why?

The answer is because.

Untill and unless God reveals the answer, all the palaver in the world will never answer a "why" question about God. In this case, God has not revealed the why. All else is purely human speculation, on both sides.

[AlwaysThinking]

Nope. Don't think that at all. However, if you read back through the non-believers' comments in this thread, you'll see that an underlying sentiment is what a benevolent God should do. I'm just saying that such determinations are not ours to make--they are His.

(Hope your head doesn't hurt. <g>)

-Allen

No my head doesn't hurt (I didn't bang for too long!)

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question377.htm

Heh - a good point, touche!

...I will admit to my analogy being a little off. I should have said 'the same tube used to take fuel into the fuel tank being used to feed air into the engine...'

It can't be disputed that fuel and air have to 'combine' - at some point...

So, all we need now is an explaination as to how having a combined stomach / lungs tube with a 'value' to make sure (sometimes without success) food flows one way, and air flows the other way - rather than just having two seperate tubes - is 'sensible', we can go and catch a ball game or summin'

The answer is because.

Untill and unless God reveals the answer, all the palaver in the world will never answer a "why" question about God. In this case, God has not revealed the why. All else is purely human speculation, on both sides.

Another answer that I respect.

[Vex]

Heh - a good point, touche!

...I will admit to my analogy being a little off. I should have said 'the same tube used to take fuel into the fuel tank being used to feed air into the engine...'

It can't be disputed that - at some point - fuel and air have to 'combine' at some point...

So, all we need now is an explain as to how having a combined stomach / lungs tube with a 'value' to make sure (sometimes without success) food flows one way, and air flows the other way - rather than just having two seperate tubes - is 'sensible', we can go and catch a ball game or summin'

Another answer that I respect.

I'm no medical profesional but if you had a single tube for both breathing and digestion of food how do you expect to have your stomach acid remain in your stomach when you hang upside down? Seems to me the setup now is much more efficient course of design then what you have offered. The treachia(SP) combines at one point making a single tube which connects to the mouth. so in essence your analogy is completly off. you are asking God to change to a new design that already happens to be in place. Perhaps another alternitave would be to have one oriface for digistion and one for respiration... but i think it would be too much of a stretch to try and eat like a starfish. and i'm not sure where you could put the food intake oriface.

as for any engine anology at some point sooner or later gas and air combine in a single location. the amount combined within that location would determine the expected energy released. however if you run it too lean you can cause an engine to knock and/or ping both of which is detrimental to the engine, or if you run it rich you can flood out. seems to me it's the same setup and most efficent setup. the same can go for those who choke on food, it provides opprotunity to thin out the gene pool, or have a friend preform the heimlich(sp) manuver.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Vex,

I've created a new thread. I fear that if we continue too far in this thread, we could be accused of de-railing it.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=20553

[awyatt]

Again, not the question asked.

If (potentially, as proposed in this thread), God seems willing to make life at least a BIT easier by ballooning a person's crushed foot back to normal, why is it that he (apparently, according to the evidence) never sees the need to restore an amputated limb .via miraculous means?

Why does the one case exist (at least as an eye-witness report), and not the other?

It's a practical question.

And you are ignoring the practical answer, which I provided. One more time: Perhaps it is OK with God if our bodies aren't perfect. Perhaps it is OK with God if someone lives their life with one arm (or no arms). That is a very practical answer. It is also pure speculation on my part, just as valid as the speculation that God doesn't exist.

Why, pray tell, is it somehow valid for the non-believer to conclude from the presence of "non-healed" amputees that God doesn't exist, but it is invalid for the believer to conclude from various other miracles that God does? There are only two fundamental choices that have been expressed in this thread: either God exists or He doesn't.

If God does exist, then without knowing His mind, one cannot explain why amputees remain amputees.

If God doesn't exist, then why even ask why God does anything? What purpose does speculation about a non-existent being serve, other than to bait the believers?

Until I get the chance to ask God (notwithstanding the many messengers who 'claim' to speak for him...), I'll continue to make my best guess, in an effort to best discern the most likely 'truth', and hence to live my life accordingly.

You seem to have a theory based around the PoE. I have potentially much simpler theory - that this 'God' doesn't actually exist.

Do you see the ironicly contradictory logic in such a statement? "I look forward to asking God, but He doesn't exist." That's actually funny!

Once more with feeling - that's not the question being asked.

The actual question being asked is 'Considering all the other reported 'miracles' apparently attributed to God, why is 'restoring an amputed limb' apparently not on the list?'

Actually, in post #1, Sleeping Willow posted the question as 'Why doesn't God heal amputees,' pure and simple. Then, over time, the question changed. In post 106, Noggin asked about a "god who really has it out for amputees" because he ignores their prayers, and in post 116 talks about who god favors and doesn't. Then, in post 144 RenegadeOfPhunk (you) recast the question as "Why does it appear that - up until now - God hasn't healed any amputees?"

But that wasn't the end of the morphing of the question. In post 205 it was Sleeping Willow (the original poster) who directly referenced the PoE and said that "the problem of evil does not disprove all possible Gods, but it does seem to disprove the existence of a loving, omnipotent one in a fairly brutal manner." Thus, the question of a loving, benevolent God was brought squarely into the equation by the original poster. This was built upon in post 278 where TChild2 mentioned how God is arbitrary in doling out His miracles, concluding that "such an arbitrary and whimsical God makes [his] skin crawl with disgust." Finally, in post 205 Ralph Man formally lays out how the concept of a "benevolent God" plays into all this.

So, while you may insist that my answers are not directly to the question being asked, my answers do have relevance to how the "question" has morphed over the course of over 300 posts. The question of why God may or may not heal amputees is exactly related to God's benevolence and His ability (or desire) to answer the needs and prayers of His children. Numerous non-believers have, throughout this thread, stated in uneqivocal terms that if God were really there, if He was benevolent, if He weren't arbitary, if He weren't brutal, then He would heal amputees. (Tarski illustrates this in post 314 when he says that amputees are in "a sad state of affairs deserving of mercy." In other words, "how could a loving God allow this without using His power to their benefit?")

I just bring up the point that maybe God doesn't see things that way. Maybe it is OK with him if someone doesn't have a full count of arms, legs, hands, and feet. If that is the case, and if God does exist, then non-believers (and, perhaps, believers) may never have a satisfactory answer to the question.

-Allen

[Tarski]

Why, pray tell, is it somehow valid for the non-believer to conclude from the presence of "non-healed" amputees that God doesn't exist, but it is invalid for the believer to conclude from various other miracles that God does?

Because the skeptic looks deeper and notices that it is not just the case that sometimes healings happen and sometimes they don't. Rather, there is a perfect correlation between the likelihood of an appearance of miraculous healing and the availability of a non-miraculous explanation. The atheist viewpoint actually predicts that amputee healings will not appear to happen while cancer healings will apear to happen.

[Noggin]

... [Noggin edits out the brilliant and impressive (and I sincerely mean that) accounting of the various pov's from various posters with the post # even... nice!]

Numerous non-believers have, throughout this thread, stated in uneqivocal terms that if God were really there, if He was benevolent, if He weren't arbitary, if He weren't brutal, then He would heal amputees. (Tarski illustrates this in post 314 when he says that amputees are in "a sad state of affairs deserving of mercy." In other words, "how could a loving God allow this without using His power to their benefit?")

Huzzah! Here here! The god of Cancer remission miracles and whatnot hates amputees! Or.....

I just bring up the point that maybe God doesn't see things that way. Maybe it is OK with him if someone doesn't have a full count of arms, legs, hands, and feet. If that is the case, and if God does exist, then non-believers (and, perhaps, believers) may never have a satisfactory answer to the question.

Maybe. And this very well could be my last dying breath on this thread (maybe, perhaps, quite possibly):

A god with that disposition, of unfair, arbitrary, and brutish selectiveness, displays characteristics that severely stunt my ability to cast any amount of fealty or faith towards it.

This is couched in not only the plight of the amputee, but the same selectiveness that your god displays in allowing easily thwarted pillaging genocide and unspeakable mahem to prosper with reckless abandon... the capriciousness of who is divinely aided and who is ignored (left for dead), above and beyond the amputee and into the rest of the world is enough evidence (for me) that if there is a god, he is on vacation... and he ain't got no cell phone wid im.

Noggin

[Ralph Man]

"Because no one I know has seen God heal an amputee, that means that he is incapable of doing so." "Therefore, no other proof is needed." Huh??

The "other proof" would be the steps in the argument you skipped. But crux of the matter is in the inference from not-seeing any regeneration or any purpose to forbidding it to there not being a benevolent, knowledgeable God who can do such a thing. Shortened up, the crucial leap is in not seeing any purpose to concluding the best explanation for this fact is the nonexistence of the being proposed. It isn't hard to explain the fact that some cancers go into remission and others do not, but limbs don't instantly generate in a godless world. It's takes a much more unweildy house of ad hocs to explain it in a world where a God - as you describe him - does exist. Hence we infer that the this lone fact offers some support to the notion your God does not exist. Maybe he is evil. Maybe he is powerless. Maybe he is a fiction altogether. Other issues would have to decide that.

"Because I have never seen a black swan, but I have seen a white swan, therefore black swans cannot exist.

It would be more like, "Because in all the instances of swans we've observed we've never seen a black one, it is reasonable to explain this data by the idea that black swans don't exist."

Or, if you prefer, "Because we have not seen any Dodos, Dodos are extinct."

This is called induction. The problem you are bringing up against it is called the problem of induction. In fact, you are bringing up a classic illustration of it. But the problem is a general issue that applies to all inferences. You're shooting your face off to cure a toothache if you want to argue that this problem makes an inference invalid. The problem, if accepted, makes induction invalid. If you need to be reminded, that you conclude God exists is the result of your inductive reasoning.

[Ralph Man]

If God does exist, then without knowing His mind, one cannot explain why amputees remain amputees.

The argument is against God existing as you propose him. You're solution in that context is just question begging.

To take another example of this reasoning:

Ralph: I know everything.

Someone: What's the atomic mass of carbon?

Ralph: I'm not saying. I have a perfectly good reason for doing so.

Someone: I can't see what that reason is, and I'd think I'd know it if it existed. I'm explaining your nonanswer by the theory that you do not, in fact, know everything. Ralph Man might exist in some form, but certainly not the form you claim.

Ralph: But if I did know everything, then I would have a perfectly good reasons you don't have access too.

Someone: Uh, isn't the point here that our observation suggests you don't know everything?

Or here's another way to put it.

The problem of evil in simple form can go something like this:

If God (defined in a given way) exists, then pointless evils do not exist

Pointless evils likely exist

Therefore, God likely does not exist.

A naive way people can try to rebut this is fairly simple as well:

If God exists, then pointless evils do not exist

God likely exists

Therefore, pointless evils likely do not exist.

The entire point of the argument is missed here. The problem exists in the second premise of the first argument. The more likely it is that pointless evils exist, the less likely it is that God exists. You can't simply assert that God exists and change this. You have to argue that it is more likely that God exists than that pointless evils exist. But in doing so, you have to acknowledge the support for existence of pointless evils, if they exist. The second argument can't refute the support for the existence of pointless evils. Any attempt to use it in that way is just fallacious circular reasoning. All it can do is formally express that one thinks the support for God outweighs the evidence for pointless evils.

If God doesn't exist, then why even ask why God does anything? What purpose does speculation about a non-existent being serve, other than to bait the believers?

I don't think you understand at all. What the believer is being asked about is their ideas about God. What's being tested is their ideas about how the world is and how ethical, consistent, or reasonable it may be.