Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

[awyatt]

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.

Which illustrates precisely that, contrary to RenegadeOfPhunk's protestations to the contrary, this really is about the PoE issue.

Thanks for your help, Noggin. (And Merry Christmas--or, if your belief system demands, Happy Holidays.)

-Allen

[awyatt]

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

Actually, it is not question begging. I say God exists. I say pointless evil exists. Those who have a PoE issue assert that the two are related. I don't recognize any such relation, in the way that you insist must be.

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.

Unbelievers take it one step further. They don't just say that Ralph Man doesn't know everything, but that Ralph Man doesn't even exist. Big difference, wouldn't you say? They take Ralph Man's refusal to answer their question (God's refusal to provide a miracle at a time and place where they can satisfactorily verify such miracle) as evidence that rises to the level of proof that Ralph Man does not and never has existed.

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.

Dang! It was a test? Ah, heck. I thought Sleeping Willow was just asking a question because he really didn't know and wanted to find out something.

-Allen

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Which illustrates precisely that, contrary to RenegadeOfPhunk's protestations to the contrary, this really is about the PoE issue.

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.

I will give you this awyatt - I can see where you're coming from when you say this in response to the arguments of 'some'.

But when I say 'your answers haven't really addressed the question', I really mean in relation to the argument I'm putting forward.

I've already stated that I don't nessesarily agree with the original wording. So - yes - I accept that you had a valid point and complaint - certainly in relation to some. But from now on, when I say 'your answer really didn't answer the question', take it as a given that I'm talking about my specific question (which, let's face it, isn't exactly a million miles away from the OP). I speak for myself, not for others...

No part of my argument concerns the morality or non-morality of God - in any way. It is concerning the (apparent - as I see it) discrepancy between (what I would call) less 'miraculous' healings and more 'miraculous' healings. If the PoE was directly related to the argument, surely how 'miraculous' the healing would be would be irrelavant? At least statistically...

It seems to me that the more logical answer - coming from a thiest perspective - is that being forwarded by many of your fellow theists. That being 'Why put a veil of forgetfulness over us, only for God to go and do something so undeniably miraculous, as to 'give away' his existence?!'

I think any other disagreements we have really stem from this one point, so for now, I'll leave it at that...

[grego]

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.

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.

A few problems here with your reasoning:

1. I put it all in there. Yes, black swans was a classic illustration. It was intentional.

2. "Reasonable?" Not so.

3. Not "we", but "I".

4. God does not exist because of inductive reasoning, nor have I concluded that he does by the same method. This is called "assumption".

It isn't hard to explain the fact that some cancers go into remission and others do not.

Actually, the question is about it happening to atheists, and whether there were other reasons for it. Which also shows that it's impossible to convince anyone of something they don't wished to be convinced of.

Anyway, it was, once more--but much more than usual--eye-opening to see the responses on the board.

A classic of "just asking, no harm" --> "well, ok, maybe so" --> "God can't do a miracle" --> "I'm really NOT wicked nor an adulterer, believe me" --> "You must be wicked for acccusing me of doing that" --> "Show me ONE, just ONE miracle" --> "Hah! A story! Folklore! My mother's friend's great aunt's boyfriend..." --> "First-hand? Liar!" --> "X-rays! Depositions! PROOF, BABY" --> "Maybe THEY saw it, but I didn't." --> "Well, the same thing happened to me, but I'm ATHEIST, so it couldn't have been a miracle." --> "Ok, sorry." --> "Let's attack them again! Character, accusing them of accusing us of saying what we really said and our posts prove but we've 'forgotten'"... Wonderful. Brilliantly wonderful.

Once more, it comes down to "faith, with evidence for those willing--not 'inclined'--to see".

[Ralph Man]

Which illustrates precisely that, contrary to RenegadeOfPhunk's protestations to the contrary, this really is about the PoE issue.

Not precisely given the way RoP is choosing to frame it. The problem is that one of the "outs" of the problem proposed is simply that God is not benevolent. If God is a capricious, evil monster, then the lack of limb regeration can make sense. The same goes for proposing that God simply does not have the power to regenerate limb. The issue isn't aimed at suffering per se, but rather the arbitrary way in which it is claimed God works miracles (I choose to frame the argument as a variation of the PoE). The simple essence of the argument is that the theory "God does not exist" is a better explanation for what we observe than the alternatives. It just so happens on of the ways that arbitrariness can be explained is by giving up the premise that God is a good being. The argument presumes that God is a good being who has the power to regenerate limbs if he so wishes. Give up either of those premises, and the argument falls. It just so happens that theists generally don't like to do that.

[Ralph Man]

A few problems here with your reasoning:

1. I put it all in there. Yes, black swans was a classic illustration. It was intentional.

You don't believe in induction? Heh. Hehehe. Hehehehehehehehe. So your rebuttal to this argument is to reject inductive reasoning? Awesome. Simply awesome. This is what it takes to defend your beliefs? One wonders how you develop confidence that not hitting your keyboard won't blow up in your face. I mean, saying it won't is like saying, "there are no black swans." Or, if you prefer, that Dodos are extinct.

4. God does not exist because of inductive reasoning, nor have I concluded that he does by the same method. This is called "assumption".

You believe in God because of inductive reasoning. For instance, if you think, "there exists a god" is the most reasonable explanation for your set of spirtual experiences, your are relying on an inference that falls to the "swan" problem just the same. I wasn't assuming anyting. I was inferring based upon my experience with reasons people say they believe in God, and Mormons in particular, that you likely believe in God because of inductive reasoning. This is true of virtually all believers in any diety on the planet that ever existed, so it was a safe bet.

Do you have some deductive proof of God that flows from incorrible premises you wish to share? Do you think your belief in God is justified merely through flat presupposing he exists without any support? If not - and I doubt you are into either esoteric form of apologetic - then you either believe because of inference that is suspectible to the problem of induction or because you feel you can hold any old belief arbitrarily.

Once more, it comes down to "faith, with evidence for those willing--not 'inclined'--to see".

Ahh, the last resort of the intellectual scoundrel. Those who fault you for not being able to verify their claims in a sound manner just don't want to see the evidence. It's there. Like, there was this guy who... Tried and true throughout the ages.

[grego]

Sorry, Ralph Man, no cigar (not that I had one for you anyway). ;0

I must admit I didn't quite understand all of what you said.

Ok, ok--I'll be really honest--I have no clue what you're saying in at least half your post... Nevertheless...

Ralph Man wrote:

I wasn't assuming anyting. I was inferring based upon my experience with reasons people say they believe in God, and Mormons in particular, that you likely believe in God because of inductive reasoning.

Ralph Man, please tell me, what is the difference between assuming and inferring?

Ralph Man wrote:

You believe in God because of inductive reasoning.

Isn't this what nonbelievers always claim LDS are doing?

Are you proposing this is why most LDS believe?:

This would be like:

I believe in God.

Nothing I see makes me disbelieve in God.

Therefore, God must exist.

Once more, it comes down to "faith, with evidence for those willing--not 'inclined'--to see".

Ahh, the last resort of the intellectual scoundrel.

No, no, I think you meant this:

"God doesn't exist."

[johndoe]

Hmmmm, I don't think grego is following Ralph Man's points. It almost seems like the two of you aren't really talking to each other.

Induction really isn't quite the same as assumption. We certainly do not want to throw out all induction just to try to thwart any particular atheist argument. Induction does not require the type of faith that us believers have in God.

Though I will have to say the question of why we believe in God in an interesting one. I'm not convinced that it is necessarily because of inductive reasoning. Have to think about that a bit...

[grego]

Just curious,

Why doesn't evolution heal amputees? If evolution wanted to prove itself good, useful and true, it could heal just one human amputee's problem. I mean, it heals lizards and spiders, why not humans? Aren't we good enough for it? Obviously evolution CAN heal amputees--just that it DOESN"T heal human ones. Is evolution evil? Or, what is going on here?

[asbestosman]

Just curious,

Why doesn't evolution heal amputees? If evolution wanted to prove itself good, useful and true, it could heal just one human amputee's problem. I mean, it heals lizards and spiders, why not humans? Aren't we good enough for it? Obviously evolution CAN heal amputees--just that it DOESN"T heal human ones. Is evolution evil? Or, what is going on here?

Evolution isn't conscious, doesn't know, and doesn't care.

Why don't we regrow limbs? Who knows for sure. With respect to evolution, it may simply be that it is more efficient for the survival of genes to enable things other than limb regeneration. For one thing, humans tend to be useful to a group even without a limb or two. For another thing, loss of limbs doens't appear to be all that common--at least not in my experience.

[Jason]

I'm probably pointing out something that was pointed out long ago on this thread, but I don't think I'll take the time to read all 300 replies.

This thread isn't a question - it's a statement disguised as a question. The statement is "God doesn't heal amputees because he doesn't exist."

I answered "other" in the poll because the answers provided are too short for such a complex question. My short answer is that if all of our obstacles were instantaneously removed, or if we never encountered them in the first place we wouldn't be able to learn anything at all. We are in this life to learn, and we learn through trials. Someone who loses a limb learns a great deal from the experience, a lesson he or she would not learn if it healed a moment later. And those close to them learn from it as well.

You might also reflect that this life is an infinitessimal drop in the ocean of eternity. Dealing with the inconvenience of missing or malformed limbs for 60, 70, or even 90 years is roughly equivelent to having your foot fall asleep in the eternal perspective.

If one views this life as the extent of existence then of course it seems a hard thing to go without a limb, but that again involves not believing in God or the existence of an afterlife - the obvious base assumptions of the writer of this thread.

God could make this life nothing but sunshine and lollypops, except that to do so would completely defeat the purpose of this life.

[asbestosman]

Someone who loses a limb learns a great deal from the experience, a lesson he or she would not learn if it healed a moment later. And those close to them learn from it as well.

May God smite me with it and may I never recover.

Wait! I changed my mind.

[It occurs to me . . .]

My short answer is that if all of our obstacles were instantaneously removed, or if we never encountered them in the first place we wouldn't be able to learn anything at all. We are in this life to learn, and we learn through trials. Someone who loses a limb learns a great deal from the experience, a lesson he or she would not learn if it healed a moment later. And those close to them learn from it as well.

You might also reflect that this life is an infinitessimal drop in the ocean of eternity. Dealing with the inconvenience of missing or malformed limbs for 60, 70, or even 90 years is roughly equivelent to having your foot fall asleep in the eternal perspective.

If one views this life as the extent of existence then of course it seems a hard thing to go without a limb, but that again involves not believing in God or the existence of an afterlife - the obvious base assumptions of the writer of this thread.

God could make this life nothing but sunshine and lollypops, except that to do so would completely defeat the purpose of this life.

As opposed to someone who could learn something from a myriad of other illnesses, that apparenty God doesn't mind healing them of "miraculously"? I think you are missing the point a bit there. We all know that these trials and tribulations that we go through are for our own good and development, and also to teach compassion to those around us, but the question remains, if God can heal people in other cases, why doesn't he heal amputees, EVER? Surely, somewhere, there is an amputee who has learned enough about life through his handicap and is worthy of a healing now. Why just amputees?

[All-Seeing Eye]

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

I suppose that praying to know whether the Book of Mormon is truly the Word of God could be interpreted as "seeking a sign." The sign sought is some indicia (e.g., through the still, small voice) that the Book is of God.

I myself have sought such a "sign." I don't consider myself to be wicked (I admit my imperfection, but I am repentant, and nobody who knows me would call me "wicked"), and I honestly never have committed adultery... nor do I plan to.

[grego]

Evolution isn't conscious, doesn't know, and doesn't care.

Of course, some evolutionists would hardly agree with you here.

That seems the expected answer. But as far as evolution and healing go, there's quite a bit of the "collective conscious" involved.

Why don't we regrow limbs? Who knows for sure.

Are you waxing poetical or theoretical here? I thought only strong pro-LDS POV were allowed to do that...

With respect to evolution, it may simply be that it is more efficient for the survival of genes to enable things other than limb regeneration.

Joe Caveman loses a leg. No big loss, eh? Just that he can't run from danger, hunt, or a lot more. Evolution... where ARE you?

For one thing, humans tend to be useful to a group even without a limb or two.

Yes, I've heard that quite often already on this thread a few times.

For another thing, loss of limbs doens't appear to be all that common--at least not in my experience.

Maybe not as much nowadays, but I don't know about much earlier...

[Hammer]

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.

I have heard enough stories of saved limbs when in surgery or heading for surgery that I dont' see the question as relevant or even valid.

Maybe, just maybe after the limb wasn't saved before the amputation, God had already made a decision and stuck with it!

[asbestosman]

Are you waxing poetical or theoretical here? I thought only strong pro-LDS POV were allowed to do that...

Would you hold it against me if I were pro-LDS? On the other hand, I do get tired of having to count fast offerings and tithing every week as financial clerk . . .

[Jason]

As opposed to someone who could learn something from a myriad of other illnesses, that apparenty God doesn't mind healing them of "miraculously"? I think you are missing the point a bit there. We all know that these trials and tribulations that we go through are for our own good and development, and also to teach compassion to those around us, but the question remains, if God can heal people in other cases, why doesn't he heal amputees, EVER? Surely, somewhere, there is an amputee who has learned enough about life through his handicap and is worthy of a healing now. Why just amputees?

Who says He never has healed an amputee?

Proving that this is the case would be proving a negative. All we can say is that we haven't heard any accounts of an amputee re-growing a lost limb. And as was mentioned, many people have had limbs saved when many thought they would be lost.

[asbestosman]

Who says He never has healed an amputee?

Proving that this is the case would be proving a negative. All we can say is that we haven't heard any accounts of an amputee re-growing a lost limb. And as was mentioned, many people have had limbs saved when many thought they would be lost.

She turned me into a newt!

.

.

.

I got better.

[It occurs to me . . .]

Who says He never has healed an amputee?

Proving that this is the case would be proving a negative. All we can say is that we haven't heard any accounts of an amputee re-growing a lost limb. And as was mentioned, many people have had limbs saved when many thought they would be lost.

Is this the fall back arguement? Using that, we might as well stop all discussion right there. Who says God hasn't ever done this that or the other thing. We just don't know about it! I'll wait until I see proof of it, instead of relying on your "maybe he has done it somewhere, sometime" rationale. And yes, if it makes you feel better, I'm guilty of seeking after a sign!

She turned me into a newt!

.

.

.

I got better.

[Oprichnik]

How about this pesky thing called the laws of physics?