Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?

[Tarski]

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...)

Why isn't "God doesn't exist" a possible answer? Talk about assuming!

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Why isn't "God doesn't exist" a possible answer? Talk about assuming!

Heh - wow. Didn't think of that one

...my bad

[Noggin]

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.

grego responded:

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?

QUOTE

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.

Hi grego. CFR what does that mean? call for reference? You want a reference for people claiming god is behind their cancer remission? Just walk down to the cancer ward of your local hospital. You're going to find some nurse or doctor or receptionist sooner or later that will testify to this fact that miracles happen all the time there. There is your reference.

You are cfr'ing on "Things god cannot do"? God cannot heal amputees, he's never done it...that is reference enough. Maybe I assume too much on what CFR means.

grego writes:

I see Aluwid had a comment on that:

QUOTE

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

Look. IMO, what that is, is a dumbing down of god's capacity to do his miracles. Way back in the day, Man was NOT needed, apparantly, for miracles to occur. In the superstitions of the ancient days (Old/New Testament) God did all sorts of amazing "bonefide" no holds bar miracles... sans Man. Parting red seas, turning rivers to blood, killing first borns, smiting rocks and making water flow out of them, raising snake staffs and healing entire multitudes, holding a Who's God Is the Best God contest with the wicked preists of Baal... sending down fire from heaven to consume them all...

Those are the miracles created out of nothing. Since manifestations like this no longer happen, believers are left to excuse themselves and their god when in reality maybe a more realistic explanation is to offer up the suggestion that the ancient ones had an over active imagination. Your support for Aluwid's suggestion that we should not expect god to create miracles out of nothing is nothing but an excuse for god's quiet demeanor as of late.

. 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?

That's the big question? Rokay, I'll bite your hook.

Look. Take an honest, god fearing amputee, and foster into this person huge amounts of indoctrination so that he/she might have maximum amounts of faith. Find, oh I don't know, the righteous Stake President who has an unfortunate farm accident and looses his leg. Then tell that person to pray to god for a limb restoration. I'll allow a priesthood blessing by the prophet himself to set the stakes in your favor as much as possible. I'll even suggest multiple priesthood blessings by all of the 12, and the Pope too. When limb regeneration does not happen, the big question is answered. No?

Yet have this same man get cancer, and a blessing, and a subsequent remission... and according to one's belief, "god" is all over that. How can you not conclude that god has it out for amputees? It's a grudge. A god grudge!

Now, what is lame about this is this: There might be a few believers hair brained enough to be inclined to blame the amputee's lack of limb regeneration on his lack of faith... and that is repulsive to many. Jesus did not say ask and ye shall receive? Jesus did not say to have faith the size of a mustard seed and you can move mountains? Was he just kidding then? I mean, a mustard seed is pretty small.

Noggin

[johndoe]

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.

I didn't realize that it hadn't originated with Marshall Brain, thanks for the correction. Where did you first hear it?

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.

There are so many connotations in this question directly related to the Problem of Evil that it really can't be extracted. Do you really believe that it does not seem evil (at least on the surface) that God could heal all the world's amputees instantly, yet chooses not to do so? Your fellow critic Noggin seems quite sure that it does.

If your intent was only to pose a question about the reason for the lack of evidence for the existence of God, then this particular example is an extremely poor choice. It's rather like asserting that Mel Gibson's recent run-in with the law is an example of the preponderance of drunk driving among celebrities only and that it has nothing to do with anti-semitism. It would be extremely easy to pose a question about evidence for God's existence only, without including the Problem of Evil in the context of it. I imagine even your hypothetical ten-year-old could do it. Such being the case, this poll displays bad methodology at best and outright manipulation at worst.

[johndoe]

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]

The PoE is not an answer, it is part of the question. The problem in the poll question is that it conflates 2 issues (which are admittedly related):

1. Why the lack of evidence for the existence of God? (Why does He not reveal Himself to all?)

2. Why does evil exist when God has the power to eliminate it? (PoE)

An adequate answer to the poll question requires exploration of both of these issues, which are sufficiently thorny by themselves to really benefit from separate treatment. My personal feeling is that the gut reaction of many to the poll question is to dive into the PoE rather than issue #1 (as Noggin has demonstrated). I don't think that #1 is exactly a subset of #2, but a good treatment of the PoE (IMO) will address #1 as well.

[Tarski]

Look. IMO, what that is, is a dumbing down of god's capacity to do his miracles. Way back in the day, Man was NOT needed, apparantly, for miracles to occur. In the superstitions of the ancient days (Old/New Testament) God did all sorts of amazing "bonefide" no holds bar miracles... sans Man. Parting red seas, turning rivers to blood, killing first borns, smiting rocks and making water flow out of them, raising snake staffs and healing entire multitudes, holding a Who's God Is the Best God contest with the wicked preists of Baal... sending down fire from heaven to consume them all...

Good, point! And this piece of data is explained by the "Unified Field Theory of Religion". Namely, God doesn't exist.

Miracles get more dramatic as you go back in history. Stories get more fantastic in the retelling and given a few decades or centuries, they turn into woppers.

[Aluwid]

we should not expect god to create miracles out of nothing

My point was that you cannot expect creation out of nothing. That doesn't follow Mormon theology per my understanding. Perhaps in other belief systems, but I can't speak for those.

[Tarski]

My point was that you cannot expect creation out of nothing.

There are plenty of atoms of every kind around for him to arrange. In fact, if he acts soon enough after the amputation he could use the same arm or leg.

[Aluwid]

In fact, if he acts soon enough after the amputation he could use the same arm or leg.

As was the example in the Garden of Gethsemene with the ear, correct? I expect that these would be possible, but again you can do this with modern medicine as well to a point. So one can believe what they choose to believe.

As for forming the missing joints out of atoms in the air, it might be possible, but again it seems to me that we'd be crossing the line from healing to creating and I'm not sure that we've been provided directions on that.

Anyway, that's about the extent of my thoughts on the matter, I'm about as far out on the theoretical limb as I can go at this point.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I don't think that #1 is exactly a subset of #2, but a good treatment of the PoE (IMO) will address #1 as well.

Yeah - fair enough. I get what you're saying...

My point was that you cannot expect creation out of nothing. That doesn't follow Mormon theology per my understanding. Perhaps in other belief systems, but I can't speak for those.

Hmmm - well - if there's some practical problem with restoring limbs, I'd be very wary of holding out too much hope of this 'resurrection' thing you guys are looking forward to...!

I'm about as far out on the theoretical limb as I can go at this point.

Pun intended?

[Aluwid]

Hmmm - well - if there's some practical problem with restoring limbs, I'd be very wary of holding out too much hope of this 'resurrection' thing you guys are looking forward to...!

I was only looking at the problem from the eyes of a mortal man living in the 21st century. I.E. Why do we not hear about people healing amputees nowadays. I wasn't referring to any lack of ability of God to do such things, rather a lack of mortal understanding, and perhaps permission, to do them. Kind of like, you don't hear about your neighbors running around creating Galaxies, yet at one point we believe that ours was created (and more will be created in the future) etc.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I was only looking at the problem from the eyes of a mortal man living in the 21st century. I.E. Why do we not hear about people healing amputees nowadays. I wasn't referring to any lack of ability of God to do such things, rather a lack of mortal understanding, and perhaps permission, to do them.

Does this mean (to put it in other words):

'Given the practical considerations surrounding the regeneration of a limb, it is a 'higher' form of miracle than others, and therefore it may be beyond mortal man to request these kinds of miracles of God (Certainly in these modern times).

Is that an accurate representation of your position?

[Tarski]

Kind of like, you don't hear about your neighbors running around creating Galaxies, yet at one point we believe that ours was created (and more will be created in the future) etc.

Galaxies form naturally through gravitation and conservation of angular momentum etc. Nobody "made" them.

[Son]

It may be that someone in that situation thought it so permanent they felt it was futile to ask. If one does not ask how can they receive. We were formed from the elements of the earth.

As to growing back a limb, think of a lizards tail. Not so tough.

As to possiblities, I would think multiplying bread and fishes to be in the same category; cells being mass produced on command or better yet, let there be.

[Black Moclips]

Sort of related weird story:

On my mission, the mother of one the missionaries I lived with did not have a leg from the knee down. At the time, she was still using crutches to get around. One night, she got up to use the bathroom. When she sat back down in bed, she realized that her crutches were still on the floor. She hadn't taken them with her to the bathroom! (que twighlight zone music)

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

As to growing back a limb, think of a lizards tail. Not so tough.

Through Stem Cell research, we may well be growing new limbs for ourselves quite soon...

...but you'll have science to thank for that though. (Although it probably won't take that long for somebody to claim that a particular Stem Cell treatment wouldn't have worked without an invisible 'nudge' from God along the way...)

As to possiblities, I would think multiplying bread and fishes to be in the same category; cells being mass produced on command or better yet, let there be.

...or reorgansed from surrounding matter seamlessly.

Either way, a good example that should indicate a limb regeneration 'miracle' being perfectly possible...

[charity]

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.

[Aluwid]

Does this mean (to put it in other words):

'Given the practical considerations surrounding the regeneration of a limb, it is a 'higher' form of miracle than others, and therefore it may be beyond mortal man to request these kinds of miracles of God (Certainly in these modern times).

Is that in any way accurate?

I'm hesitant to try to put my thoughts into a small concise statement since it's difficult to articulate the nuances. But you capture the general idea of what I'm saying. A related thought that pertains to this is the allowance in Mormon theology for deeper truths that most are not ready for yet. Milk before Meat, etc. So, while the general population is likely not ready to understand such things, I don't doubt the possibility that there exist mortals today with the requisite knowledge and faith to accomplish this.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

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.

I will agree that the OP question is worded such as to be - effectively - a "show me" question.

Hence my prefered wording:

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

Silly children.

...said one child to the other children, as she was busy re-arranging her barbie dolls...

[koakaipo]

I think it's sorta obvious that our worldview is very different from people back in the day, and so how we will process what could be viewed as the presence of God will be different. I do think though it's odd to somehow think we can somehow whack-a-mole everything so that it can only be relevant through the recourse of science. I don't think that's the only measure or standard for truth. Just because we can't control circumstances and situations to grasp an understanding, doesn't mean something doesn't exist. It means our methods of attempting to understand may not apply in that context. Some things are elusive, somethings aren't meant to be reigned in, as much as we would like to think otherwise.

I'm a modern day kinda a gal, who doesn't need the old time religious style to have faith in something higher. But I also have lived in different cultural contexts, with experiences that are very hard to grasp even for a modern cynical type like myself, so I've always left some room for mystery and possibilities.

[Noggin]

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.

But Mother!

Why can't god heal amputees?

Mother: Because he just can't, now pay your tithing dear!

But he heals cancer patients all the time! Why do we automatically assume god heals cancer patients?

Mother: Yes, isn't it wonderful? We assume god is there, because cancer remissions are dubious and random enough to keep god hidden, and thus our faith is not threatened. We are here to walk by faith. We are here to prove who we are to god.

God can do anything?

Mother: Yes, he is omnipotent

Except heal amputees?

Mother: He chooses not to heal them

But you just said he chooses to heal cancer patients!

Mother: Yes, but I explained that... He just chooses not to heal amputees.

How do you know?

Mother: Because, silly child, he would have healed an amputee by now and besides, if he healed an amputee that would be a far too obvious manifestation of his existence. God needs to remain hidden so that we can have faith.

But Catholics see the image of the Virgin Mary on buildings and trees, how is that not "far too obvious"?

Mother: that's different.

What if God doesn't exist? Why can't that be a possibility?

Mother: Because I say so

Noggin, befuddled.

[Son]

But Mother!

Why can't god heal amputees?

Mother: Because he just can't, now pay your tithing dear!

But he heals cancer patients all the time! Why do we automatically assume god heals cancer patients?

Mother: Yes, isn't it wonderful? We assume god is there, because cancer remissions are dubious and random enough to keep god hidden, and thus our faith is not threatened. We are here to walk by faith. We are here to prove who we are to god.

God can do anything?

Mother: Yes, he is omnipotent

Except heal amputees?

Mother: He chooses not to heal them

But you just said he chooses to heal cancer patients!

Mother: Yes, but I explained that... He just chooses not to heal amputees.

How do you know?

Mother: Because, silly child, he would have healed an amputee by now and besides, if he healed an amputee that would be a far too obvious manifestation of his existence. God needs to remain hidden so that we can have faith.

But Catholics see the image of the Virgin Mary on buildings and trees, how is that not "far too obvious"?

Mother: that's different.

What if God doesn't exist? Why can't that be a possibility?

Mother: Because I say so

Noggin, befuddled.

Noggin screen play take 2,

Question, Raising the dead? Tougher or easier than limb re-growth. Noggin come forth.

[charity]

noggin, of course you are befuddled. When you are a child, you think as a child. When you grow up, you will think as a grown up. Most people don't get to grown up stage until after they die. Now, if you will just stop asking your silly questions, I must go and rearrange my barbie dolls.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Now, if you will just stop asking your silly questions, I must go and rearrange my barbie dolls.

Man - tell me about it. I've got a Stegasarous to build out of Lego bricks before lunch...!

Some things are elusive, somethings aren't meant to be reigned in, as much as we would like to think otherwise.

Hence why answer 3 - as I detalied earlier - is the most sensible answer to the question (from a thiestic point of view - that's for Tarski ). Is it not?

You are right - some things are elusive. And God has obviously meant this to be so - including his own existence! (Assuming he does exist...)

I don't know if God does or doesn't exist. I don't pretend to know either way. But surely we can somewhat agree on this point - right?

I'm a modern day kinda a gal, who doesn't need the old time religious style to have faith in something higher. But I also have lived in different cultural contexts, with experiences that are very hard to grasp even for a modern cynical type like myself, so I've always left some room for mystery and possibilities.

If this is meant to imply that the question 'Why does it appear that - up until now - God hasn't healed any amputees?' is meant to not leave any 'room for mystery and possibilities', then that assumption is truly in the eye of the beholder, and is an assumption of theistic world-views.

...there is still plenty of room for 'mystery and possibilities' in the athiestic world-view. A God is not required for that...

[Tarski]

Noggin screen play take 2,

Question, Raising the dead? Tougher or easier than limb re-growth. Noggin come forth.

As in he has been dead for along time and already stinketh?

Harder---and never happened.