Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

[johndoe]

We hashed this out several months ago already. If I remember correctly it was around the time that Ralph Man first started posting here, and he was active (as was I) on that thread. It would have been courteous of you to acknowledge Marshall Brain as the intellectual owner of this particular criticism. I suppose it's a fine tradition to plagiarize arguments from the internet without recognition, but I don't care for the practice personally.

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

It all boils down to the Problem of Evil. Either you feel there is an adequate response to it, or you don't. Personally I think the LDS response to the Problem of Evil is a rather good one, but I understand if any given atheist disagrees (as Ralph Man did).

[grego]

Why doesn't God heal sign-seekers?

()There is no God.

()He does heal sign-seekers (call for references).

()He is testing their faith in His ongoing campaign to hide Himself from science and observation.

()He hates and/or is punishing sign-seekers (please explain).

()Invariably, sign-seekers do not have enough faith to be healed.

()Other (please explain)

[Tarski]

May I ask, if it happened, what would you do?

No wonder Jesus waited three days. Got a whole bunch of believers from that, too.

Amputations restored? Would a healing by God like that leave a detectable scar?

Frankly, I'm glad, for the sakes of some here, that they don't have this "proof" to worry about.

Tarski, I remember your ridiculous scientific proof setup for testing. If you want to test God's existence in a test tube, you're just not going to get far. It doesn't bother some, either, I guess.

Test tube? That's cute but not much more.

Look, I live in a world of ordinary verifiable things and people. What pray tell is so ridiculous about that?

TV repairmen are real and fairies are not. Fantasies that comfort us in the face of impending death or feelings of meaninglessness or personal guilt are tempting but not tempting enough for my part.

Look! It is claimed that God heals cancer patients and crippled people (nothing overtly, visibly wrong in either case) but for some reason it appears that he does not heal amputees. That's a reasonable observation.

[grego]

TV repairmen are real and fairies are not.

CFR

Look! It is claimed that God heals cancer patients and crippled people (nothing overtly, visibly wrong in either case) but for some reason it appears that he does not heal amputees. That's a reasonable observation.

Crippled people--"nothing overtly, visibly wrong"??

Sure, I agree it is an observation one could question, as with many other things.

[Tarski]

Why doesn't God heal sign-seekers?

()There is no God.

()He does heal sign-seekers (call for references).

()He is testing their faith in His ongoing campaign to hide Himself from science and observation.

()He hates and/or is punishing sign-seekers (please explain).

()Invariably, sign-seekers do not have enough faith to be healed.

()Other (please explain)

There is no God. Any other questions?

[Dan Vogel]

Why should he restore what he didn't bother to prevent?

[johndoe]

Here is the past discussion. OK, it was over a year ago - how time flies!

By the way, there are only 2 pages in the archives of what was a multi-page discussion. There were at least 10 pages if I remember correctly. Mods, what happened to the rest of it?

[grego]

There is no God.

CFR.

Anyway, I guess it's pretty sure who will answer the "no God" choice (yeah, I know, the poll is loaded, sorry).

[SleepingWillow]

Willow, your game is growing tiresome.

Here you protest that Pahoran is twisting scripture and that the Bible itself isn't evidence because it's been filtered through so many people.

Yet everyday on these boards, you have people offering you first hand testimonies- the witness of Christ in their own lives- and you summarily reject them with an airy wave of the hand.

It seems to me that not only are you demanding a sign (as did other notable and ill-fated apostates in the Scriptures) but that you are also bound and determined to fulfill scripture and prove that no witness will be sufficient to the willful disbeliever.

I say Pahoran is twisting the Bible to suit his purposes, give evidence of that claim, and you respond with ad-hominem attacks? What is the purpose of this board if not to discuss the scriptures and claims about the nature of God and the LDS faith?

[Tarski]

CFR.

Since you asked, you must now read!

Reference 1

Reference 2

And heres an opinion piece just for fun: There is no god and you know it---Sam Harris

[SleepingWillow]

We hashed this out several months ago already. If I remember correctly it was around the time that Ralph Man first started posting here, and he was active (as was I) on that thread. It would have been courteous of you to acknowledge Marshall Brain as the intellectual owner of this particular criticism. I suppose it's a fine tradition to plagiarize arguments from the internet without recognition, but I don't care for the practice personally.

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

The argument did not originate with that website. That website is a good resource on the subject, but I was more interested in what people on this board had to say. It's hardly plagarism to ask a question your average 10-year-old might ask.

It all boils down to the Problem of Evil. Either you feel there is an adequate response to it, or you don't. Personally I think the LDS response to the Problem of Evil is a rather good one, but I understand if any given atheist disagrees (as Ralph Man did).

I see this as distinctly different from the Problem of Evil. It does not seem "evil" that amputees are not healed. It merely seems to contravene claims about miracles of a medical nature.

[Pahoran]

So now, instead of responding to what you actually say, I'm supposed to divine what I think you mean and then respond to that as if that's what you said?

No.

You are supposed to respond to what I actually say instead of coming up with a clever straw man and responding to that instead.

Jesus didn't reveal that. The scribes who translated what Jesus supposedly said hundreds of years prior revealed that.

How do you know that Jesus didn't reveal that? It's recorded in several places. Is it because it's not found in "A Course in Miracles," or what?

Besides, you're contorting that scripture far beyond its original intent. You're trying to make it say that no evidence is ever expected to be found for God's existence (a catch-all clause), whereas it seemed to clearly apply to people who were asking that God do this or that thing right in front of their eyes, specifically as proof without any other purpose.

Thank you for demonstrating that I am using it correctly. Sign seekers always seek for signs just to make a point; they are convinced that the signs are not going to come.

Jesus supposedly healed people all the time (even raised people from the dead), but he did these things primarily to heal people.

And time and again he refused to do them in front of hostile or unbelieving witnesses, and frequently told the recipients to keep their experiences to themselves.

It's perfectly reasonable to expect the same thing to happen with amputees.

Just as "perfectly reasonable" as the Pharisees and Sadducees demanding that Jesus produce signs to order for them.

If someone regenerated a limb in response to a blessing, this would be relatively easy to demonstrate as a miracle, because there is nothing in ordinary experience that has people spontaneously regenerating lost limbs.

If someone regenerated a limb in response to a blessing, this would be relatively easy to reject as a miracle, because it would immediately be counted as part of "ordinary experience that has people spontaneously regenerating lost limbs."

So my question to you is: Why doesn't God heal amputees?

See above. He does.

Regards,

Pahoran

[selek]

Willow,

The following is from the Church's Beta website under Gospel Topics- Signs :

Signs are associated with gifts of the Spirit. They are often an indication of faith in God. The resurrected Jesus Christ taught His disciples, "Signs shall follow them that believe" (Mark 16:17; see also Mormon 9:24â??25).

Some people claim that they would believe in God or His work if they were able to receive a sign. But faith does not come by signs; it comes through the Holy Ghost as individuals study the scriptures and prayerfully seek to learn the plan of God. The Lord revealed, "Faith cometh not by signs, but signs follow those that believe" (D&C 63:9). Such signs are given to those who are faithful and obedient to strengthen them in their faith and to help them carry out the will of God.

Because signs are associated with faithfulness, nonbelievers often mock believers with requests for a sign. In tempting Jesus Christ, Satan made this mocking request (see Matthew 4:3. 6), as did those who crucified the Christ (see Matthew 27:40, 42). Jesus taught, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign" (Matthew 12:39). Signs are not given to produce faith but to confirm faith and to bless the faithful.

You have abandoned your faith, relying on the wisdom and logic of men to sustain you- and as a result both miracles and the peace that comes with the Holy Spirit are absent from your life.

In seeking to sustain your apostasy, and perhaps to persuade others to join you, you have brought up this topic (for a second time).

Answer a few questions for me, honestly, if you please:

Do you really want an answer or is this simply your way of exposing what you consider the "aburdities of belief"?

If you received a satisfactory answer, would it lead you back to the Church, or would you do as so many others and simply rationalize it away?

You have implied repeatedly that you are seeking for truth and understanding- that you really want to know the way things are. Can you accept (short of a life-altering miracle) that there really is a God and that his son sacrificed himself for you?

[Weezer]

... ridiculous "God hides from science" blather ...

I take it, then, that you reject the notion that God hides from science. Do you believe that some of God's interactions with us are, in fact, subject to scientific confirmation? Or do you believe that the resistance of divine events to scientific scrutiny is unintentional on God's part? Or some other option?

I'm not trying to bait you. I'm genuinely curious.

[awyatt]

I see this as distinctly different from the Problem of Evil. It does not seem "evil" that amputees are not healed. It merely seems to contravene claims about miracles of a medical nature.

What claims does it contravene?

-Allen

[Irondukesteve]

There is no God. Any other questions?

There is a God. No questions.

Why should he restore what he didn't bother to prevent?

Free Agency

Part Theist/part Deist

Since you asked, you must now read!

And heres an opinion piece just for fun: There is no god and you know it---Sam Harris

And perhaps you could read this opinion piece by Paul Johnson from The Spectator called"No wise man, And No Great Artist Leaves God Out" PM me if you want it.

Dawkin's argument are unoriginal and have holes. He has sold out. If one looks at philosophical journals etc. it has all been discussed. He is just bringing the ideas to the masses of people who will respond to Media Hype rather than really thinking for themselves. He is witty but will have no long lasting affect upon the intellectualism of mankind.

[SleepingWillow]

Do you really want an answer or is this simply your way of exposing what you consider the "aburdities of belief"?

I really want an answer. "Exposing absurdities," as you call it, is merely a side-effect of scientific scrutiny and truth-seeking. Probe the points in a belief system perceived to be weakest and see how they stand up. You would do the same towards any other belief system.

If you received a satisfactory answer, would it lead you back to the Church, or would you do as so many others and simply rationalize it away?

That depends on the nature of the satisfactory answer.

You have implied repeatedly that you are seeking for truth and understanding- that you really want to know the way things are. Can you accept (short of a life-altering miracle) that there really is a God and that his son sacrificed himself for you?

Yes, definitely. I am most receptive to truth, as I do not seek truth in only places that are comforting or desirable... certainly it would be very advantageous to me if the Church was true. There is hardly any place more challenging to my current beliefs than this board.

[Pahoran]

There is no God. Any other questions?

And we all know who says that, don't we?

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

You referenced an article called "The God Delusion." Here is the real "God Delusion:"

1) God is defined as the supreme intelligence in the universe.

2) There is no supernatural being of the kind worshipped by deluded fools as "God."

3) Therefore, the supreme intelligence in the universe is found in the crania of those people intelligent enough to recognise this fact.

4) Therefore, atheists are God.

Frankly I can think of nothing sillier--or more fanatical--than one group of carbon-based lifeforms trying to convince another group of carbon-based lifeforms that the electrochemical brain state known as "atheism" is somehow superior to an electrochemical brain state known as "belief."

Regards,

Pahoran

[SleepingWillow]

What claims does it contravene?

-Allen

May I refer you to this thread that outlines the contravened claims?

[SleepingWillow]

And we all know who says that, don't we?

You referenced an article called "The God Delusion." Here is the real "God Delusion:"

1) God is defined as the supreme intelligence in the universe.

2) There is no supernatural being of the kind worshipped by deluded fools as "God."

3) Therefore, the supreme intelligence in the universe is found in the crania of those people intelligent enough to recognise this fact.

4) Therefore, atheists are God.

Seriously, this is awesome. I never thought about it like that. Is that your original work or is it paraphrased from someone else?

Frankly I can think of nothing sillier--or more fanatical--than one group of carbon-based lifeforms trying to convince another group of carbon-based lifeforms that the electrochemical brain state known as "atheism" is somehow superior to an electrochemical brain state known as "belief."

How about some carbon-based lifeforms trying to convince another group of carbon-based lifeforms that the electrochemical brain state known as "belief" is somehow superior to an electrochemical brain state known as "atheism?"

[Yong Xi]

God gives us amputees so we can learn to have compassion. It is not enough to just hold doors open for old ladies.

[awyatt]

I asked (and Sleeping Willow has yet to reply) if there is implicit evidence of his/her expected answer in the very phrasing of the question "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" The expectation is that God doesn't, or hasn't, which would seem to be assertion without evidence. It is an attempt to place the burden of proof on the believer, through what amounts to the following (or some slight variation of the following):

1. The Bible promises that God answers prayers.

2. Pray for a missing limb to be restored.

3. If it is not restored, then there is no God.

This, of course, is falacious reasoning. But just to make it more palatable for an LDS audience, Sleeping Willing throws in the requisite "faith" element by saying that, perhaps, there really is a God, but the person praying doesn't have enough faith to invoke God's power in behalf of the amputee. Again, falacious reasoning.

The unbeliever asserts that a loving, caring God must restore the missing limb, or else (1) God doesn't exist, (2) God doesn't love His children, (3) prayer is ineffectual, or (4) God is incapable of restoring the limb.

What the unbeliever fails to answer is why God must behave the way the unbeliever expects.

-Allen

(PS: Want a fun exercise? In the three steps provided above, replace #2 with anything you'd like, such as "Pray for a hot-fudge sundae to appear" or "Pray for a new car." Shades of Janis Joplin! Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz. My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.")

May I refer you to this thread that outlines the contravened claims?

How very circular of you.

-Allen

[SleepingWillow]

What the unbeliever fails to answer is why God must behave the way the unbeliever expects.

So you're saying God can behave however He wants?

[Weezer]

Allen, do you believe that God heals some amputees? I'm not asking whether he heals all amputees that ask for it (which he obviously doesn't); I'm just asking whether you think he heals some. If your answer is yes, then how do we account for the fact that none of these cases have been documented? If your answer is no, then why does God heal other infirmities but not this one?

[Hammer]

Which part? (I said a lot)

You aren't suggesting that a doctor will tell me that remission of cancer is impossible are you?

Perhaps you think any doctor will tell me that amputees spontaneously grow back limbs.

I can't figure out what the heck you are talking about.

Pfff! Obviously.

Doctors will tell you that miracles aren't always events that could happen without a miracle.

God gives us amputees so we can learn to have compassion. It is not enough to just hold doors open for old ladies.