Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

Hammer · December 19, 2006

Now that is classic mormon speak. Blame the lack of a miracle on the lack of faith and on the person themselves. Hammer, you would be a real joy as a guest speaker at the local amputee support group meeting.

That is Bible Speak. Or don't you read that book?

Tarski · December 19, 2006

This is a strawman. The "sign seeking" isn't in the asking, but in the insisting that God doesn't exist if He doesn't act when we ask. If I said "Please heal Uncle Pete so that I can know you exist," that is seeking a sign. If I say "Please heal Uncle Pete, but Thy will be done," that is not sign seeking.
-Allen

Then no one is sign seeking. We are not asking that God heal amputees on demand- we are just wondering why it apparently doesn't happen at all.

Hammer · December 19, 2006

Then no one is sign seeking. We are not asking that God heal amputees on demand- we are just wondering why it apparently doesn't happen at all.

Who says it doesn't happen at all? I have heard personal accounts of those who have had limbs damaged and were going to have them amputated and they miraculously were healed.

I have also heard of those who had their fingers or arms or toes cut off and miraculously had them reattached even those the vessels seemed too damaged etc.

I think you are not looking far enough.

SleepingWillow · December 19, 2006

Who says it doesn't happen at all? I have heard personal accounts of those who have had limbs damaged and were going to have them amputated and they miraculously were healed.

This falls under the category of "cancer remission."

I have also heard of those who had their fingers or arms or toes cut off and miraculously had them reattached even those the vessels seemed too damaged etc.
I think you are not looking far enough.

Reattaching recently lost limbs or digits is a routine surgical process and there is no evidence it requires divine intervention.

Sethbag · December 19, 2006

And you're looking too far. This is simple. He's not asking why God doesn't heal peoples' limbs that are damaged and the doctors intend to amputate, but then the limb manages to recover the person keeps it. He's not asking about people who's arm gets cut off and they rush it to the hospital and doctors reattach it and the person regains some percentage of usage of the arm. He's not asking why God doesn't heal amputated limbs when some athiest or critic demands that he do it to prove his existence. He's asking why it doesn't seem to happen at all that God is healing peoples' severed limbs.

Yes, I realize that the absence of any evidence that this has occurred does not constitute evidence that it never has. We realize all of that. Yes, it's entirely possible that it has happened and simply nobody knows about it at all. But we hear about enough cancer patients recovering after priesthood blessings, or other illnesses like that, and we never ever ever hear about any severed limbs being restored by the priesthood.

That's what he's asking. All of this other stuff that people bring up has nothing to do with the original question. Forget the critics even exist, and answer the question of why faithfull people, getting blessings through the priesthood held by other faithful people, never seem to have severed limbs restored, that can be documented as having happened.

Noggin · December 19, 2006

(SleepingWillow @ Dec 18 2006, 02:36 PM)
I doubt amputees would consider the restoration of their limbs "idle amusement for the wicked and adulterous."
Pahoran responds: Perhaps not, but that's what you're asking for.
Sleeping Willow writes: P.S., I am neither wicked nor adulterous.
Pahoran responds: Jesus says it, and you deny it. Hmmm, who has more credibility? What a dilemma!

Hm. Look, there are no documented cases for amputees regrowing limbs. No matter how many prayers and incantations and annointings are done, limb regeneration in humans does not happen. When someone asks why this is so and why does it appear god does not find favor with amputees (by healing just one), that someone is called out as a sign seeker.

It's not sign seeking. It is an observation. God does not heal amputees. stop. No more. No less.

So what are we to make of this observation? Observe what god does heal. Cancer, the flu, menstral cramps, stroke symptoms, headaches, stomach ulcers... and so much more... all of the things that "god' supposedly "heals" is also going in and out of remission spontaneously. Without any prayers or pleas or celestial bargaining happening in any way shape or form. Step back and see the random patterns of remission. Then enter the incurable cases that any of the hundreds of gods out there does not (or can not) touch.

There are a legion of cases of "healings" in cancer wards. Are these cancer patients seeking after signs? Even if we ask god to show himself by healing Aunt Millie? Please. I mean, how dare they ask for a healing... according to the thinking found on this thread. Many cancer victims pray to god and miraculously become "cured". What of the poor amputee? Can't he/she pray for restoration? Why the disparity? God favors cancer patients and ignores amputees? Is it easier to just say there is no god? Or.. imagine a god who really has it out for amputees? I mean, nevermind that non believing atheists like Lance Armstrong also get cured of cancer all the time...

I suggest that people find "god" in cancer remission because of the fact that cancer can and does go into remission all the time. It is part of a random act. It is a mystery. And our gods are steeped in all things unexplained aren't they?

As for the credibility of Jesus, that is another topic for another thread. Talk about strawman arguments, Pahoran... sheesh!

primer: 1.3 billion Muslims, 900 million hinduists, 376 million buddhists, 500 million atheists/ seculars/ humanists, and 14 million jews can't be all wrong can they?

Noggin

awyatt · December 19, 2006

So God could be evil?

God could choose to do evil. Are you saying that because God doesn't choose to do evil that His choice somehow shows that He cannot choose? (The question of whether He would still be God if He decided to choose to do evil is beside the point. You only asked if he could.)

-Allen

grego · December 19, 2006

Tarski wrote:

Since you asked, you must now read!

Is that supposed to be proof?

(I thought that was discussed on another thread, where SW admitted his writing to be full of holes or something like that, but it makes for good reading (for atheists)?)

BTW, where are you in your promised BoM reading?

-=-=-=

Tarski wrote:

On the other hand, apparently people with cancer and other hidden diseases seem to quite often have plenty of faith.

Hidden?? Hidden?? "[C]ancer and other hidden diseases" are hidden?

What, so now all those scientific methods don't count--just your eye? Then how does a blind man ever get scientific proof enough to believe? Is this bias or what?

-=-=-=

Some more questions:

Why doesn't God place premature babies back into the womb?

Why doesn't God make midgets grow tall?

Why doesn't God heal aborted fetuses?

Why doesn't God save innocent people?

Why doesn't God save ebola victims?

See, once you get past one, you go horizontally until you can't think of any more; then you go vertically to the next level, and so forth. Once that is done, you go to another area, and do the same. Ignore anything that you don't want to see. Ignore all evidence and stories in other areas, too.

AND REMEMBER: If God does it once, He must do it every time after that, making it "scientific"--true science can be replicated exactly according to formula. So, if He does it once, even if it's documented--if He can't repeat it, it doesn't count! Cool, huh? <_<

And then, just because someone else saw it, how do I know I can trust him, or even them? They need to repeat the miracle for every nonbeliever. Of course, it might be faked, still.

If God had to do everything according to man, what would this world be like?

Which goes back to the big question: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=20463.

Noggin · December 19, 2006

God could choose to do evil. Are you saying that because God doesn't choose to do evil that His choice somehow shows that He cannot choose? (The question of whether He would still be God if He decided to choose to do evil is beside the point. You only asked if he could.)
-Allen

How about, god allows evil. God could stop evil but obviously chooses not to. Which, at some point along the gradient of evil things, becomes evil in and of itself.

hence, god is evil.

Noggin

Son · December 19, 2006

Hm. Look, there are no documented cases for amputees regrowing limbs. No matter how many prayers and incantations and annointings are done, limb regeneration in humans does not happen. When someone asks why this is so and why does it appear god does not find favor with amputees (by healing just one), that someone is called out as a sign seeker.
It's not sign seeking. It is an observation. God does not heal amputees. stop. No more. No less.
So what are we to make of this observation? Observe what god does heal. Cancer, the flu, menstral cramps, stroke symptoms, headaches, stomach ulcers... and so much more... all of the things that "god' supposedly "heals" is also going in and out of remission spontaneously. Without any prayers or pleas or celestial bargaining happening in any way shape or form. Step back and see the random patterns of remission. Then enter the incurable cases that any of the hundreds of gods out there does not (or can not) touch.
There are a legion of cases of "healings" in cancer wards. Are these cancer patients seeking after signs? Even if we ask god to show himself by healing Aunt Millie? Please. I mean, how dare they ask for a healing... according to the thinking found on this thread. Many cancer victims pray to god and miraculously become "cured". What of the poor amputee? Can't he/she pray for restoration? Why the disparity? God favors cancer patients and ignores amputees? Is it easier to just say there is no god? Or.. imagine a god who really has it out for amputees? I mean, nevermind that non believing atheists like Lance Armstrong also get cured of cancer all the time...
I suggest that people find "god" in cancer remission because of the fact that cancer can and does go into remission all the time. It is part of a random act. It is a mystery. And our gods are steeped in all things unexplained aren't they?
As for the credibility of Jesus, that is another topic for another thread. Talk about strawman arguments, Pahoran... sheesh!
primer: 1.3 billion Muslims, 900 million hinduists, 376 million buddhists, 500 million atheists/ seculars/ humanists, and 14 million jews can't be all wrong can they?
Noggin

We are all wrong, until we are right, even people that know the stories of every amputee that has ever existed.

grego · December 19, 2006

Noggin wrote:

How about, god allows evil. God could stop evil but obviously chooses not to. Which, at some point along the gradient of evil things, becomes evil in and of itself.
hence, god is evil.

You've solved THE philosophical question! Hurry, get it printed before someone else gets credit!! :0

Tarski · December 19, 2006

God could choose to do evil. Are you saying that because God doesn't choose to do evil that His choice somehow shows that He cannot choose? (The question of whether He would still be God if He decided to choose to do evil is beside the point. You only asked if he could.)
-Allen

I don't think it is beisde the point because it would have implications as to whether he was ever God.

Lets try a little proof:

1. God cannot have evil in him and be God as we define it.

2. If God chooses to do wrong then we can see that because he chose it, it came from him and so he had it in prior to the choice (choices are not spontaneously occuring random events that pop into existence ex nihilo--we make choices for reasons and based on who and what we are and what we feel)

3. Since he had it in him prior to the choice he was not God prior to the choice afterall--->contradiction.

In short, how could evil emanate from a perfectly good God? So if evil emanates from a being then that being not only isn't God but never was God. The transition is impossible becuase it must be based on something.

grego · December 19, 2006

Ah, come on!! I was first, and you're not answering any of my questions!

Tarski · December 19, 2006

Tarski wrote:
Is that supposed to be proof?
(I thought that was discussed on another thread, where SW admitted his writing to be full of holes or something like that, but it makes for good reading (for atheists)?)
BTW, where are you in your promised BoM reading?
-=-=-=
Tarski wrote:
Hidden?? Hidden?? "[C]ancer and other hidden diseases" are hidden?
What, so now all those scientific methods don't count--just your eye? Then how does a blind man ever get scientific proof enough to believe? Is this bias or what?

The word hidden was used in passing. You are reading to much into it. It is hidden in the sense that we know that there are spontaneous remissions but the details of the remission are often hidden and so we are free to imagine that gods or witches did it. In the case of real amputee we can't do that. The real point is that the only kinds of healings that seem to happen are those for which we already know that there are non-miraculous possibilities such as remission. Coincidence? <_< :unsure:

Tarski · December 19, 2006

Some more questions:
Why doesn't God place premature babies back into the womb?
Why doesn't God make midgets grow tall?
Why doesn't God heal aborted fetuses?
Why doesn't God save innocent people?
Why doesn't God save ebola victims?

Obviously none of this is a surprise from the atheistic viewpoint--are you trying to help us win the argument?

Oh yeah, and all of those biological facts were designed by God right?

Noggin · December 19, 2006

Obviously none of this is a surprise from the atheistic viewpoint--are you trying to help us win the argument?
Oh yeah, and all of those biological facts were designed by God right?

ebola, aborted fetuses, midgets... ah. That's just tip of the iceberg. These are some of the unhidden deformities that sit in the same camp as amputees. The name of the camp is "Things that God cannot do". Nobody can find god there.

Cancer patients are in the hidden camp. Tarski explained it well, but I guess you missed the point. People claim that god is behind their cancer remission when in reality non believing cancer patients go into remission every day sans god. It is not a miracle and to say that it is portrays assumptiveness (and a touch of arrogance). What? God favors you over amputee people? Do you really think that because you believe in jesus, you can be healed? Don't cut me off just yet because by that logic, if you really think that...

what in the heck is god doing with ebola virus patients, chronically small people, aborted fetuses, and amputees? It does not matter how much faith they have, they will never have a miracle.

Noggin

Neighbor · December 19, 2006

God does heal amputees. "By His stripes we are healed". By faith we await the resurrection and 'the restoration of all things' when the faith will be sight. Until then we know it is true because Jesus rose from the dead.

Mordecai · December 19, 2006

God does heal amputees. "By His stripes we are healed". By faith we await the resurrection and 'the restoration of all things' when the faith will be sight. Until then we know it is true because Jesus rose from the dead.

This was going to be part of my answer. I have a little more to add, though. I think it was Joseph Fielding Smith that said that it goes against nature (or something to that effect) to produce an adult being without it being born as an infant from a woman. God can do all things that can possibly be done, and He only will do them in a particular way in the confines of natural/Eternal law. Babies will rise from the dead as babies and after they are fully grown, will be translated, if Pres. Smith was correct. Since this seems to be the case, producing a whole adult limb would also go against nature. The reproduction of life seems to be done in one way and one way only. Of course, a limb is part of our adult body and creating a new limb may not be a miracle that is done without the process of childbirth. Dead matter is another story, it seems, as God can turn water into wine or move mountains. Also, altering an imbalance or repairing damage is altogether different than producing a new body or even a part of a body. It seems that one MIGHT use a stem cell, and this one day might be possible, though I doubt it. (The biogenetic field that is evident in fetal development is either changed or is nonexistent at the adult stage. I'll explain in a new thread soon).

Zakuska · December 19, 2006

Then no one is sign seeking. We are not asking that God heal amputees on demand- we are just wondering why it apparently doesn't happen at all.

I don't recall an amputee ever being heeled in any scripture? Do you? So then why would you expect it?

Zakuska · December 19, 2006

Cancer patients are in the hidden camp. Tarski explained it well, but I guess you missed the point. People claim that god is behind their cancer remission when in reality non believing cancer patients go into remission every day sans god. It is not a miracle and to say that it is portrays assumptiveness (and a touch of arrogance). What? God favors you over amputee people? Do you really think that because you believe in jesus, you can be healed? Don't cut me off just yet because by that logic, if you really think that...

Just because Athiests go into cancer remission sans God doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in it. What about the faith of the Son or daughter who prayed for their athiest parent?

Aluwid · December 19, 2006

My thinking is along the same lines with Mordecai. How would one heal an amputee exactly? One might expect that a new arm would just *poof* into existence upon command, but I don't believe that it works that way. Keep in mind that we are formed from preexisting elements, not created ex-nihilo. This means that the matter necessary to constitute the arm would need to be provided in some way as part of the healing process. In truth this seems to me to be stepping into creation territory instead of just healing because to do it this way you'd really be creating a new arm, just as Adam was first created, from other materials.

I suppose the other way to accomplish it would be to "grow" the limb. But I'm not sure that our bodies were designed to do it that way, and assuming they are not, it seems that once again it might be stepping away from healing, and moving into creation. And creation is not a subject that we have really been given clear instructions on. (And it makes me wonder, we have the authority to do it, but do we have the permission to do so? I'm drawing a blank).

In my opinion it comes down to the fact that we don't know how to do it. The method hasn't been revealed to us (at least it sure isn't known generally) so loss of a limb must be dealt with as a permanent condition of mortality. Perhaps this is a case similar to the Brother of Jared and the stones that gave light in the ships for the voyage across the sea. Man was expected to provide the means for the miracle, instead of just expecting God to create the miracle out of nothing.

What I expect to see is that science will start to provide the way to regrow limbs following natural laws. Then once the process is formalized we'll be back to the current situation where miraculous progress will following healing yet there will be no way to objectively state that the healing did not happen by luck, it'll still take faith to believe.

grego · December 19, 2006

Noggin wrote:

People claim that god is behind their cancer remission when in reality non believing cancer patients go into remission every day sans god.

CFR.

I guess if Tarski had explained it well, it wouldn't have been a problem, eh? But I think you already figured that out, right?

The name of the camp is "Things that God cannot do". Nobody can find god there.

Ah, but many have.

"Things God cannot do"--> CFR, please.

I see Aluwid had a comment on that:

Man was expected to provide the means for the miracle, instead of just expecting God to create the miracle out of nothing.

. Please, Noggin, answer the Big Question.

So what would be the scientific procedure to test this? How does one make certain that it's certain and not hidden? How does one know it was God for sure who did it? How does one cut off everything but God from this, to prove he did it?

And who here will commit--no excuses at all--to being the best LDS after they witness it, and do their best to live up to it?

Then no one is sign seeking. We are not asking that God heal amputees on demand- we are just wondering why it apparently doesn't happen at all.

Nonsense. The posts have shown to the contrary.

Daniel2 · December 19, 2006

Has anyone posted THIS link, yet?:

"Why Won't God Heal Amputees"

It's a fascinating section of the website godisimaginary.com .

The video about "The Best Optical Illusion in the World" is really interesting. It talks about how all so-called "answers to prayer" can be boiled down into three basic "answers": "Yes," "No," and "Wait." As such, believers set up a "No Lose" situation for whatever God they believe in/pray to. After all, even if you prayed to a Jug of Milk and believed that the answers will ultimately either be "Yes," "No," or "Wait," then the MILK JUG will ALWAYS answer prayers, too!

Daniel

EDIT: I just saw on page four of this thread that JohnDoe already posted this link... sorry for the double information!

SleepingWillow · December 19, 2006

Tarski wrote:
Is that supposed to be proof?
(I thought that was discussed on another thread, where SW admitted his writing to be full of holes or something like that, but it makes for good reading (for atheists)?)

I assume you are referring to Richard Dawkins? I made no such claim that his writing is "full of holes." In fact, I claimed that the strength of his argument was overwhelming.

RenegadeOfPhunk · December 19, 2006

First of all, I'll agree with those who have suggested that the OP could have been worded better.

The original question could have been put thus:

"Why does it appear that God does not heal amputees?"

An even better way to put it would have been:

"Why does it appear that - up until now - God hasn't healed any amputees?"

This would remove any assumptions about what has or hasn't taken place up until now. It also invalidates replies like "God will heal plenty of amputees - when we are all resurrected", because the question is specifically about the past, not trying to predict the future.

...it would also (hopefully) have cut down on the cry of 'sign seeker' (because again, the question isn't about trying to predict the future - only making an 'observation' about the past).Although - meh - I'm sure this question is always going to generate this cry from some thiests, no matter how you word it...

Anyway - to sum up the answers (of any substance) that have been given so far:

1. It is a consequence of the PoE (Problem Of Evil).

2. God may well have healed amputees - we just may not know about it.

3. This isn't really an issue about amputees, this is the issue of why God doesn't prove his existence. (Note - this is NOT the same reply as crying 'Sign Seeker!. The former actually attempts to answer the question. The latter only tries to lay a moral 'guilt trip' on the questioner. Why the latter is seen as a sensible response is for the individual thiests involved to decide...)

Answer 3 is the only one I can take seriously.

Answer 1 answers the question Why does God sometimes allow injuries to go 'unhealed' - even in regards to the 'faithful' - sure. But that answer - in and of itself - doesn't define any practical limitation on whatever miracles God may choose to render that can be inspected in a materialistic fashion. It places 'a 'limit, but the limit is not defined in practical terms, it is defined in 'moral' terms, or possibly even more ambigiously than that...

Not all miracles require assistance from 'non-supernatural' nature, or from scientific man - as have been referenced previously in regard to 'soon-to-be' amputees or 'just-been-made' amputees...

Take the example of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Is it safe to say that Lazarus wasn't going to naturally 'pop' back to life anytime soon? Isn't it also safe to say that there is nothing his 'fellow man' could have done to save him?

..and yet Jesus could bring him back to life. So here is a miracle that doesn't rely on nature, nor on man in anyway. And plenty of these kinds of miracles happen (if I'm to take many of my thiests relatives and friends seriously...) And yet the only way to restore the limb of a faithful believer is:

a. Within a very specific timescale - i.e. just before it happens or just after it happens AND

b. with the assistance of nature and / or man...?

..why the discrepency? The PoE doesn't directly answer this question. It mearly consigns it to the 'God Knows' catagory. Which may be good enough for the average thiest, but isn't it perfectly understandable that it really doesn't seem that strong a response to us athiests?

Someone earlier provided a whole list of other, OTT miracles that God doesn't choose to perform. And it's conceed that the example of amputees is really no better than a lot of other examples. BUt this then - again - points us to answer 3 rather than answer 1. It points towards the 'practicality' of the miracle. (Whereas if the issue really was the PoE, then practicality wouldn't matter. After all, there are no limitations if God doesn't want there to be any...)

Until someone can show why amputees are generally less faithful / less deserving than others with other (less 'miraculous' to heal) afflictions, the PoE is nothing but a misdirection. Or more specifically, the PoE is an answer to 'general afliction which goes unchecked by God', but not a direct answer to the specific example of amputees, or any other 'similar' examples.

Answer 2 is more logical, but I find it highly dubious. I find it hard to believe that if God had actually - without ambiguity and miraculously - healed an amputee, that it would not be a famous incident that the entire world would know about. (certainly the Western world, if it is a miracle attributed to the Christian God).

Maybe if it had only happenned once - somewhere in deepest darkest Africa, where the Christian God is unknown and there is little contact with the 'outside world' could I see this as a viable hypothesis...

(...and of course it would be all the more ironic because even if the miracle did happen, it may well not be atributed to the Christian God!)

So this leaves us with Answer 3: 'God doesn't want to prove his existence'.

This answer makes sense. This answer is 'logical'. In fact I find this answer a perfectly sensible one.

Do I buy it? Hardly! But at least it is internally consistent AND consistent with the evidence.

If some thiests don't favour it because it seems too 'weak' an answer to them, and therefore choose to 'shout down' those who re-phrase it as 'hiding from scientific inspection', that's their look-out I guess...

[edit]

Although, in fairness, perhaps the 'shouting down' was more in relation to the particular wording. i.e. 'continuing campain' and such...'

Also, I'm now wondering if many in this thread consider answers 1 and 3 to be essentally the same thing. i.e. God not proving his existence is part of the PoE?

[/edit]

Sign In

Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?