Amputee Healings?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]pat wrote:Yes, I am sincere. 100%.

I tell you what. I’ll meet you in the middle. Can you provide me either a synopsis or some way of getting to the heart of the matter in terms of Calvin’s view of predestination. I don’t mean that I am lazy or something, it’s just that I am not in a place where I can dedicate time to such a project. But I would like to see it from your eyes so I could understand, at least in some way.
One thing I have learned is that the ‘predestination’ is actually a tricky word and I take the strictest definition of it. But recently I realize that people don’t see it the same way. In other words, we tend to agree at the core but our words fail to express it accurately. Sometimes people fight about things they even agree with. [/quote]Well Pat that’s very decent of you. I’ll see what I can do. I must say that predestination is simply the natural result of a certain view of God and not the central point in itself. I don’t believe in predestination because I love predestination for predestination’s sake. I honestly see a God who simply cannot fail. It is not possible that He could genuinely desire anything He does not get.

Listen, I came to believe in predestination indirectly through being convinced by Calvin himself of my own deadness in sin. He took me though the Scriptures on a journey of self examination after which I wound up in my bathroom leaning on the sink looking myself in the eyes in the mirror and I knew he was tellin me the truth. It wasn’t even about predestination at that point. It was about what I was without Jesus. I KNEW. Had God left it to me to lift myself up and choose Him I was damned where I stood.

162

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:Yes, I am sincere. 100%.

I tell you what. I’ll meet you in the middle. Can you provide me either a synopsis or some way of getting to the heart of the matter in terms of Calvin’s view of predestination. I don’t mean that I am lazy or something, it’s just that I am not in a place where I can dedicate time to such a project. But I would like to see it from your eyes so I could understand, at least in some way.
One thing I have learned is that the ‘predestination’ is actually a tricky word and I take the strictest definition of it. But recently I realize that people don’t see it the same way. In other words, we tend to agree at the core but our words fail to express it accurately. Sometimes people fight about things they even agree with. [/quote]Well Pat that’s very decent of you. I’ll see what I can do. I must say that predestination is simply the natural result of a certain view of God and not the central point in itself. I don’t believe in predestination because I love predestination for predestination’s sake. I honestly see a God who simply cannot fail. It is not possible that He could genuinely desire anything He does not get.

Listen, I came to believe in predestination indirectly through being convinced by Calvin himself of my own deadness in sin. He took me though the Scriptures on a journey of self examination after which I wound up in my bathroom leaning on the sink looking myself in the eyes in the mirror and I knew he was tellin me the truth. It wasn’t even about predestination at that point. It was about what I was without Jesus. I KNEW. Had God left it to me to lift myself up and choose Him I was damned where I stood.
[/quote]

What do you think of the hypothetical that those who are not saved will have never have existed? Their entire existence will be annihilated.

That everything will be placed in God’s presence and those things that are in one accord with God’s will will become united with him, and those that are bound to the material will be consumed by it.

163

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:
Still no answer to my post - why has God never healed an amputee?

I see all kinds of other mumbo-jumbo but no ANSWERs.[/quote]

IF one accepted your (argument sake) premises that God performs explainable miracles like curing cancer and healing other diseases, but does not heal amputees, the obvious answer would be that he only performs miracles that could have another explanation. Or put another way he only performs miracles that don’t violate laws of physics, but that he only shifts or manipulates reality within the parameters of the probabalistic laws of physics.
[/quote]

I thought god was supposed to be omnipotent. What you’re saying, essentially, is that miracles don’t exist and everything follows the laws of nature. If that is true, a supernatural god is both impossible and unnecessary.[/quote]

Define Omnipotent. IF God is truely omnipotent to the extreme definition then he can violate the constricts of logical argument. You can’t logically limit a OMNIPOTENT being.

Others have argued that God is omnipotent to the degree that he sets the laws and does but not break his own laws.

If he is the creator of natural laws, and desires not to violate them, then when he heals an amputee, he would do so by going back in time and keeping it from happening in the first place and we’d never know.

Or he would erase any inconsistency from the history of the universe and we’d never know.

Or if he wanted to change something that would be unexplainable, he’d change the laws of physics and then we wouldn’t consider it to be unexplainable anymore.

Lastly, all that my statement requires is that a god would chose not to perform miracles by violating the lmits of physics, but only by manipulating reality within probabilistic constraints. If its a choice then it does not limit omnipotence.

But “some god” could still steer the universe within probability limits, and he actually does this through our unexplainable free will ability to affect the universe within the limits of probability. Some “god” whatever you call it, only need to be the last step beyond the edge of scientific explanation, and that science itself requires. Science can never completely describe reality because science is a creature of reality. It is part of it and a map can never contain the territory that it is mapping, unless the map is greater than the territory.

So as far as God being possible or necessary, that does not require that he perform unexplainable mysteries, except the one unexplainable mystery of non-determinism, which allows the ability for “probabalistic miracles”. Would it be explainable if you flipped a coin and it cam up heads 50 straight times? A god could avoid violating laws, and still basically dtermine the coin flip for every binary quantum event.

“Everytihing” does not follow the laws of physics anyway. The laws of physics are non-deterministic. They only set limits so that part is a misunderstanding too.

[/quote]

Very good post. [/quote]

Does not explain why he does not heal amputees though.

164

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I have already answered your question. The answer is, you don’t know if it ever happened or not. Do you know the fate of every person who is an amputee that has ever lived and know that not one of them ever received healing? Just because you’ve never heard of it, doesn’t mean it has not happened.[/quote]

Just because I’ve never seen a flying pig, does not mean it has not happened.[/quote]

I’ve seen a flying pig, I actually have a picture of it back home.[/quote]

I saw one too, I saw the Roger Water’s 30 anniversary of The Wall last year… does that count?

165

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:
Still no answer to my post - why has God never healed an amputee?

I see all kinds of other mumbo-jumbo but no ANSWERs.[/quote]

IF one accepted your (argument sake) premises that God performs explainable miracles like curing cancer and healing other diseases, but does not heal amputees, the obvious answer would be that he only performs miracles that could have another explanation. Or put another way he only performs miracles that don’t violate laws of physics, but that he only shifts or manipulates reality within the parameters of the probabalistic laws of physics.
[/quote]

I thought god was supposed to be omnipotent. What you’re saying, essentially, is that miracles don’t exist and everything follows the laws of nature. If that is true, a supernatural god is both impossible and unnecessary.[/quote]

Define Omnipotent. IF God is truely omnipotent to the extreme definition then he can violate the constricts of logical argument. You can’t logically limit a OMNIPOTENT being.

Others have argued that God is omnipotent to the degree that he sets the laws and does but not break his own laws.

If he is the creator of natural laws, and desires not to violate them, then when he heals an amputee, he would do so by going back in time and keeping it from happening in the first place and we’d never know.

Or he would erase any inconsistency from the history of the universe and we’d never know.

Or if he wanted to change something that would be unexplainable, he’d change the laws of physics and then we wouldn’t consider it to be unexplainable anymore.

Lastly, all that my statement requires is that a god would chose not to perform miracles by violating the lmits of physics, but only by manipulating reality within probabilistic constraints. If its a choice then it does not limit omnipotence.

But “some god” could still steer the universe within probability limits, and he actually does this through our unexplainable free will ability to affect the universe within the limits of probability. Some “god” whatever you call it, only need to be the last step beyond the edge of scientific explanation, and that science itself requires. Science can never completely describe reality because science is a creature of reality. It is part of it and a map can never contain the territory that it is mapping, unless the map is greater than the territory.

So as far as God being possible or necessary, that does not require that he perform unexplainable mysteries, except the one unexplainable mystery of non-determinism, which allows the ability for “probabalistic miracles”. Would it be explainable if you flipped a coin and it cam up heads 50 straight times? A god could avoid violating laws, and still basically dtermine the coin flip for every binary quantum event.

“Everytihing” does not follow the laws of physics anyway. The laws of physics are non-deterministic. They only set limits so that part is a misunderstanding too.

[/quote]

Very good post. [/quote]

Does not explain why he does not heal amputees though.

[/quote]

Because it it not in humankind’s nature to grow back limbs. It is impossible given our genetic make up. Higher life forms do not have this ability, a horse, for example, can not re-grow a limb, either can a dog, but if they did, would this qualify as a miracle as well?

What you are asking for is not a miracle, it is an impossibility. It can not happen because God did not create mankind or higher lifeforms to possess this ability.

166

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< The reason why this is hugely problematic, is that for predestination to be true, as a Christian, is slashes huge swaths of scripture as either wrong or utterly meaningless. >>>[/quote]On the contrary. All scripture comes to life and the true awesomeness of God is thereby magnified and exalted. He’s nothing like you Pat regardless of how badly you wish He were.
[/quote]

LOL! Ok, nice cut…
Tirib, I have thought about this little war we’ve been having and have realized how pointless it is. For my part, I was actually doing it on purpose to see if I could get you to defend your positions, but you never bit. But more importantly, I really don’t want to fight with you any more, so I won’t.

Further, I wish to apologize for all the mean and nasty stuff I have said to you. It only served to divide not bridge. I reacted because you offended me, a task not usually easily done, but you got my goat. If an atheist had said what you said, I probably would not have even blinked. Anyhow, even if you offend me in the future, I will no longer react or attack in kind.

Now, of course you know I did nothing of the sort with regards to making God like me, at all. I think you know that too. My contention is this, we don’t know how God does it. This is an age old question long before the reformation took place.

I feel Calvin took a liberty here he does not have. He took the to opposing views, slammed them together and made the bold proclamation that God is this way, with out sufficient evidence for this point of view. He just said it’s this way and God is all powerful so get over it. The problem is, he doesn’t know this. Nobody does.
The big problem is that there really is no evidence and the logic is fallacious. It not paradoxical, it’s just wrong. You cannot have both freewill and be predeclared. It’s like trying to stop and go at the same time. Quite frankly there are better explanations for the resolution of this issue. BUT the most important thing is that no explanation should be made a dogma. It’s not something we can know, it’s just something to ponder, but not say “God is this way, period.” He could, but nothing really points to it.

The fallacy is making this thought process unwavering dogma when it is anything but. [/quote]Pat if you’re sincere about this (I’m not saying you’re not) then amen. I have no desire to be your enemy and never have. I pray God’s blessing on you with all the sincerity there is (I really actually do).

You should read Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” just for your own education. Grab it from my server for later if you wish. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com:8080/forum1/host/Institutes_of_the_Christian_Religion-John_Calvin.pdf I have repeatedly said that Thomas Aquinas was an intellectual colossus which to deny would only make one look foolish anyway. He was. At the time I read the Summa Theologica I ate it up. Brain candy to say the least.

For your own edification, before you die, do yourself a favor and read the institutes. You have unjustly trivialized Calvin who was every bit the orbiting genius that Aquinas was. I would pay a lot to see those 2 debate in an open forum. Even many humanistic atheistic philosophers tip the hat to John Calvin wondering what such a giant could have taught us were he not born 500 years ago enslaved to the primitive state of knowledge of the day. You might actually enjoy it while expanding your personal education.
[/quote]

Why would it matter when Calvin was born? Surely if he was inspired by god, he would have been given the unadulterated truth without being bound by the primitive knowledge of the time.

Funny how revelation directly correlates with the naturally evolving knowledge of mankind.

167

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Here, proof that God has healed amputees. Now I wonder if you are going to persist on the amputee issue like I have never posted this or actually bring up the deeper issue the problem of evil as the reason for your unbelief?

“we have the historical record of Jesus healing lepers, some of whom we may assume had lost digits or facial features. In each case, the lepers were restored whole (Mark 1:40-42; Luke 17:12-14). Also, there is the case of the man with the shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9-13), and the restoration of Malchus’s severed ear (Luke 22:50-51)”
from
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html[/quote]

Kudos for at least trying to answer the question.

Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me. But even if it did, it begs the question why god doesn’t heal amputees today, while restricting himself to only performing healings that have alternate natural explanations.

People make up shit all the time. Put them in a controlled setting, and they can never repeat it. It’s true for divine healings, ESP, telekinesis, and every other supernatural claim people make. Of course, psychics are just con artists…but you can’t heal people in controlled conditions because, um, god will not prove himself and he will not be mocked!!!
[/quote]

“My tiny mind can’t comprehend You so therefore I have decided You don’t exist.”[/quote]

It is more honest to admit what you don’t know than to claim something is true simply because you want it to be true, and with no actual evidence that it is true.

168

[quote]orion wrote:

Does not explain why he does not heal amputees though.

[/quote]

Just because you don’t know it happened doesn’t mean it didn’t. It’s a stupid argument… Like I said to somebody else, if you put your head inside a box, it doesn’t mean the lights are out, it means your head is in a box.

It is possible over the course of some 2,000,000 years and an estimated 50,000,000,000 people who have lived on the planet, that one of them at some point had a limb restored.

Like I said it’s stupid argument. It’s something that cannot be known.

169

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me.
[/quote]

Even the crucifixion, empty tomb, resurrection, and martyr parts?[/quote]

Like I said, people make up shit all the time. They made up shit 2,000 years ago just like they make up shit today. And for the same reasons.

Even the Catholic church acknowledges this. They’ve rejected scores of letters written at the same time as the letters they ultimately sanctioned, on the basis of those letters being fraudulent and claiming fictional events that weren’t facts. It’s more than coincidence that the letters they decided to adopt happened to support their particular doctrinal beliefs, while other letters cast doubt on those beliefs.

170

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:Yes, I am sincere. 100%.

I tell you what. I’ll meet you in the middle. Can you provide me either a synopsis or some way of getting to the heart of the matter in terms of Calvin’s view of predestination. I don’t mean that I am lazy or something, it’s just that I am not in a place where I can dedicate time to such a project. But I would like to see it from your eyes so I could understand, at least in some way.
One thing I have learned is that the ‘predestination’ is actually a tricky word and I take the strictest definition of it. But recently I realize that people don’t see it the same way. In other words, we tend to agree at the core but our words fail to express it accurately. Sometimes people fight about things they even agree with. [/quote]Well Pat that’s very decent of you. I’ll see what I can do. I must say that predestination is simply the natural result of a certain view of God and not the central point in itself. I don’t believe in predestination because I love predestination for predestination’s sake. I honestly see a God who simply cannot fail. It is not possible that He could genuinely desire anything He does not get.

Listen, I came to believe in predestination indirectly through being convinced by Calvin himself of my own deadness in sin. He took me though the Scriptures on a journey of self examination after which I wound up in my bathroom leaning on the sink looking myself in the eyes in the mirror and I knew he was tellin me the truth. It wasn’t even about predestination at that point. It was about what I was without Jesus. I KNEW. Had God left it to me to lift myself up and choose Him I was damned where I stood.
[/quote]

That’s why I want to see his logic, how he derived that modus. I find the tenet problematic. If I get a chance to poke around I may look for it.
Again, it’s not that I don’t think omnipotence can’t over come it, it’s that it doesn’t have to. And in the end, nobody really knows.

171

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Here, proof that God has healed amputees. Now I wonder if you are going to persist on the amputee issue like I have never posted this or actually bring up the deeper issue the problem of evil as the reason for your unbelief?

“we have the historical record of Jesus healing lepers, some of whom we may assume had lost digits or facial features. In each case, the lepers were restored whole (Mark 1:40-42; Luke 17:12-14). Also, there is the case of the man with the shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9-13), and the restoration of Malchus’s severed ear (Luke 22:50-51)”
from
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html[/quote]

Kudos for at least trying to answer the question.

Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me. But even if it did, it begs the question why god doesn’t heal amputees today, while restricting himself to only performing healings that have alternate natural explanations.

People make up shit all the time. Put them in a controlled setting, and they can never repeat it. It’s true for divine healings, ESP, telekinesis, and every other supernatural claim people make. Of course, psychics are just con artists…but you can’t heal people in controlled conditions because, um, god will not prove himself and he will not be mocked!!!
[/quote]

“My tiny mind can’t comprehend You so therefore I have decided You don’t exist.”[/quote]

“My tiny mind can’t comprehend the universe so therefore I have decided a giant intergalactic space genie exists.”[/quote]

Or even better, nothing happened for no reason therefore nothing is everything and, and, and, it just makes sense! Can’t you see![/quote]

I don’t recall claiming that.[/quote]

Nor did I make any such claim you stated.

172

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me.
[/quote]

Even the crucifixion, empty tomb, resurrection, and martyr parts?[/quote]

Like I said, people make up shit all the time. They made up shit 2,000 years ago just like they make up shit today. And for the same reasons.

Even the Catholic church acknowledges this. They’ve rejected scores of letters written at the same time as the letters they ultimately sanctioned, on the basis of those letters being fraudulent and claiming fictional events that weren’t facts. It’s more than coincidence that the letters they decided to adopt happened to support their particular doctrinal beliefs, while other letters cast doubt on those beliefs.[/quote]

Which letters cast doubts on said beliefs and what makes them equally legit? If they are, I want to know about it.

173

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:
Still no answer to my post - why has God never healed an amputee?

I see all kinds of other mumbo-jumbo but no ANSWERs.[/quote]

IF one accepted your (argument sake) premises that God performs explainable miracles like curing cancer and healing other diseases, but does not heal amputees, the obvious answer would be that he only performs miracles that could have another explanation. Or put another way he only performs miracles that don’t violate laws of physics, but that he only shifts or manipulates reality within the parameters of the probabalistic laws of physics.
[/quote]

I thought god was supposed to be omnipotent. What you’re saying, essentially, is that miracles don’t exist and everything follows the laws of nature. If that is true, a supernatural god is both impossible and unnecessary.[/quote]

Define Omnipotent. IF God is truely omnipotent to the extreme definition then he can violate the constricts of logical argument. You can’t logically limit a OMNIPOTENT being.

Others have argued that God is omnipotent to the degree that he sets the laws and does but not break his own laws.

If he is the creator of natural laws, and desires not to violate them, then when he heals an amputee, he would do so by going back in time and keeping it from happening in the first place and we’d never know.

Or he would erase any inconsistency from the history of the universe and we’d never know.

Or if he wanted to change something that would be unexplainable, he’d change the laws of physics and then we wouldn’t consider it to be unexplainable anymore.

Lastly, all that my statement requires is that a god would chose not to perform miracles by violating the lmits of physics, but only by manipulating reality within probabilistic constraints. If its a choice then it does not limit omnipotence.

But “some god” could still steer the universe within probability limits, and he actually does this through our unexplainable free will ability to affect the universe within the limits of probability. Some “god” whatever you call it, only need to be the last step beyond the edge of scientific explanation, and that science itself requires. Science can never completely describe reality because science is a creature of reality. It is part of it and a map can never contain the territory that it is mapping, unless the map is greater than the territory.

So as far as God being possible or necessary, that does not require that he perform unexplainable mysteries, except the one unexplainable mystery of non-determinism, which allows the ability for “probabalistic miracles”. Would it be explainable if you flipped a coin and it cam up heads 50 straight times? A god could avoid violating laws, and still basically dtermine the coin flip for every binary quantum event.

“Everytihing” does not follow the laws of physics anyway. The laws of physics are non-deterministic. They only set limits so that part is a misunderstanding too.

[/quote]

Very good post. [/quote]

Damn right! mertdowg, well done.[/quote]

I’m surprised you agree with this, since I thought your position was that the laws of nature are deterministic, which is the opposite of what he said.

On the post itself, the problem is that “god” doesn’t do anything beyond what would be expected anyway, without divine intervention. If a priest could flip a coin and have it come up heads 50 straight times, consistently and in a controlled setting, it would be the headline of the millennium. The problem is they can’t do this. Religious claims never bear out, beyond what would be expected by chance alone.

174

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:
Still no answer to my post - why has God never healed an amputee?

I see all kinds of other mumbo-jumbo but no ANSWERs.[/quote]

IF one accepted your (argument sake) premises that God performs explainable miracles like curing cancer and healing other diseases, but does not heal amputees, the obvious answer would be that he only performs miracles that could have another explanation. Or put another way he only performs miracles that don’t violate laws of physics, but that he only shifts or manipulates reality within the parameters of the probabalistic laws of physics.
[/quote]

I thought god was supposed to be omnipotent. What you’re saying, essentially, is that miracles don’t exist and everything follows the laws of nature. If that is true, a supernatural god is both impossible and unnecessary.[/quote]

Define Omnipotent. IF God is truely omnipotent to the extreme definition then he can violate the constricts of logical argument. You can’t logically limit a OMNIPOTENT being.

Others have argued that God is omnipotent to the degree that he sets the laws and does but not break his own laws.

If he is the creator of natural laws, and desires not to violate them, then when he heals an amputee, he would do so by going back in time and keeping it from happening in the first place and we’d never know.

Or he would erase any inconsistency from the history of the universe and we’d never know.

Or if he wanted to change something that would be unexplainable, he’d change the laws of physics and then we wouldn’t consider it to be unexplainable anymore.

Lastly, all that my statement requires is that a god would chose not to perform miracles by violating the lmits of physics, but only by manipulating reality within probabilistic constraints. If its a choice then it does not limit omnipotence.

But “some god” could still steer the universe within probability limits, and he actually does this through our unexplainable free will ability to affect the universe within the limits of probability. Some “god” whatever you call it, only need to be the last step beyond the edge of scientific explanation, and that science itself requires. Science can never completely describe reality because science is a creature of reality. It is part of it and a map can never contain the territory that it is mapping, unless the map is greater than the territory.

So as far as God being possible or necessary, that does not require that he perform unexplainable mysteries, except the one unexplainable mystery of non-determinism, which allows the ability for “probabalistic miracles”. Would it be explainable if you flipped a coin and it cam up heads 50 straight times? A god could avoid violating laws, and still basically dtermine the coin flip for every binary quantum event.

“Everytihing” does not follow the laws of physics anyway. The laws of physics are non-deterministic. They only set limits so that part is a misunderstanding too.

[/quote]

Very good post. [/quote]

Does not explain why he does not heal amputees though.

[/quote]

Because it it not in humankind’s nature to grow back limbs. It is impossible given our genetic make up. Higher life forms do not have this ability, a horse, for example, can not re-grow a limb, either can a dog, but if they did, would this qualify as a miracle as well?

What you are asking for is not a miracle, it is an impossibility. It can not happen because God did not create mankind or higher lifeforms to possess this ability.

[/quote]

But some reptiles can and their limbs are no more complicated than ours.

So why canr we?

It is absolutely possible to do that and stay within the laws of nature.

175

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Here, proof that God has healed amputees. Now I wonder if you are going to persist on the amputee issue like I have never posted this or actually bring up the deeper issue the problem of evil as the reason for your unbelief?

“we have the historical record of Jesus healing lepers, some of whom we may assume had lost digits or facial features. In each case, the lepers were restored whole (Mark 1:40-42; Luke 17:12-14). Also, there is the case of the man with the shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9-13), and the restoration of Malchus’s severed ear (Luke 22:50-51)”
from
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html[/quote]

Kudos for at least trying to answer the question.

Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me. But even if it did, it begs the question why god doesn’t heal amputees today, while restricting himself to only performing healings that have alternate natural explanations.

People make up shit all the time. Put them in a controlled setting, and they can never repeat it. It’s true for divine healings, ESP, telekinesis, and every other supernatural claim people make. Of course, psychics are just con artists…but you can’t heal people in controlled conditions because, um, god will not prove himself and he will not be mocked!!!
[/quote]

Two things FL…
You know this is a bullshit argument to begin with…Please don’t tell me you don’t know, or know why.
Second, you also know that the whole Bible is a bunch of made up stories…I could see the argument in some books, but not the whole thing.
It’s a fascinating book, and you know it and you like it…I can tell. Yes, you like it.
[/quote]

Yes, I do find it interesting like I find other holy books interesting. You’re rare as a Christian to recognize that the bible is a bunch of made up stories. Of course, you must believe at least some of the stories are true, or you wouldn’t be a Christian in the first place.

176

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Here, proof that God has healed amputees. Now I wonder if you are going to persist on the amputee issue like I have never posted this or actually bring up the deeper issue the problem of evil as the reason for your unbelief?

“we have the historical record of Jesus healing lepers, some of whom we may assume had lost digits or facial features. In each case, the lepers were restored whole (Mark 1:40-42; Luke 17:12-14). Also, there is the case of the man with the shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9-13), and the restoration of Malchus’s severed ear (Luke 22:50-51)”
from
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html[/quote]

Kudos for at least trying to answer the question.

Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me. But even if it did, it begs the question why god doesn’t heal amputees today, while restricting himself to only performing healings that have alternate natural explanations.

People make up shit all the time. Put them in a controlled setting, and they can never repeat it. It’s true for divine healings, ESP, telekinesis, and every other supernatural claim people make. Of course, psychics are just con artists…but you can’t heal people in controlled conditions because, um, god will not prove himself and he will not be mocked!!!
[/quote]

Two things FL…
You know this is a bullshit argument to begin with…Please don’t tell me you don’t know, or know why.
Second, you also know that the whole Bible is a bunch of made up stories…I could see the argument in some books, but not the whole thing.
It’s a fascinating book, and you know it and you like it…I can tell. Yes, you like it.
[/quote]

Yes, I do find it interesting like I find other holy books interesting. You’re rare as a Christian to recognize that the bible is a bunch of made up stories. Of course, you must believe at least some of the stories are true, or you wouldn’t be a Christian in the first place.[/quote]

I made a typo, I don’t think any of them are ‘made up’. I do contend that for some of them the point and moral of the story is more important than the facts of the story, but like I said before it’s not a history book. But no, it’s not ‘made up’ what ever is in there exists for a reason…And you do like it, it does seem to bother you a lot.

177

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:
Still no answer to my post - why has God never healed an amputee?

I see all kinds of other mumbo-jumbo but no ANSWERs.[/quote]

IF one accepted your (argument sake) premises that God performs explainable miracles like curing cancer and healing other diseases, but does not heal amputees, the obvious answer would be that he only performs miracles that could have another explanation. Or put another way he only performs miracles that don’t violate laws of physics, but that he only shifts or manipulates reality within the parameters of the probabalistic laws of physics.
[/quote]

I thought god was supposed to be omnipotent. What you’re saying, essentially, is that miracles don’t exist and everything follows the laws of nature. If that is true, a supernatural god is both impossible and unnecessary.[/quote]

Define Omnipotent. IF God is truely omnipotent to the extreme definition then he can violate the constricts of logical argument. You can’t logically limit a OMNIPOTENT being.

Others have argued that God is omnipotent to the degree that he sets the laws and does but not break his own laws.

If he is the creator of natural laws, and desires not to violate them, then when he heals an amputee, he would do so by going back in time and keeping it from happening in the first place and we’d never know.

Or he would erase any inconsistency from the history of the universe and we’d never know.

Or if he wanted to change something that would be unexplainable, he’d change the laws of physics and then we wouldn’t consider it to be unexplainable anymore.

Lastly, all that my statement requires is that a god would chose not to perform miracles by violating the lmits of physics, but only by manipulating reality within probabilistic constraints. If its a choice then it does not limit omnipotence.

But “some god” could still steer the universe within probability limits, and he actually does this through our unexplainable free will ability to affect the universe within the limits of probability. Some “god” whatever you call it, only need to be the last step beyond the edge of scientific explanation, and that science itself requires. Science can never completely describe reality because science is a creature of reality. It is part of it and a map can never contain the territory that it is mapping, unless the map is greater than the territory.

So as far as God being possible or necessary, that does not require that he perform unexplainable mysteries, except the one unexplainable mystery of non-determinism, which allows the ability for “probabalistic miracles”. Would it be explainable if you flipped a coin and it cam up heads 50 straight times? A god could avoid violating laws, and still basically dtermine the coin flip for every binary quantum event.

“Everytihing” does not follow the laws of physics anyway. The laws of physics are non-deterministic. They only set limits so that part is a misunderstanding too.

[/quote]

Very good post. [/quote]

Damn right! mertdowg, well done.[/quote]

I’m surprised you agree with this, since I thought your position was that the laws of nature are deterministic, which is the opposite of what he said.

On the post itself, the problem is that “god” doesn’t do anything beyond what would be expected anyway, without divine intervention. If a priest could flip a coin and have it come up heads 50 straight times, consistently and in a controlled setting, it would be the headline of the millennium. The problem is they can’t do this. Religious claims never bear out, beyond what would be expected by chance alone.
[/quote]

I do disagree with the last sentence, but the over all post is good. The essence that possibilities are endless. Limits are a controlling factor and therefore determinatory ← (I think I invented a new word! But I like it so I am going to use it)

178

[quote]orion wrote:
Does not explain why he does not heal amputees though.
[/quote]

You’d have to first explain why G-d would heal amputees. I say if G-d cannot play on my fantasy football team then he is not real…doesn’t make sense there is no basis for my argument.

179

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me.
[/quote]

Even the crucifixion, empty tomb, resurrection, and martyr parts?[/quote]

Like I said, people make up shit all the time. They made up shit 2,000 years ago just like they make up shit today. And for the same reasons.

Even the Catholic church acknowledges this. They’ve rejected scores of letters written at the same time as the letters they ultimately sanctioned, on the basis of those letters being fraudulent and claiming fictional events that weren’t facts. It’s more than coincidence that the letters they decided to adopt happened to support their particular doctrinal beliefs, while other letters cast doubt on those beliefs.[/quote]

Most of those ‘letters’ that were rejected were not written at the same time, unless you considered the middle of the second century as the same thing as the first century and early second century…and no scholar don’t. Most of the letters they rejected didn’t cast doubt on their beliefs, the books were exaggerated (Gospel of Peter from 150 A.D) or weren’t used as liturgical readings (Proto-Evangelium of James).

180

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]saveski wrote:
Still no answer to my post - why has God never healed an amputee?

I see all kinds of other mumbo-jumbo but no ANSWERs.[/quote]

IF one accepted your (argument sake) premises that God performs explainable miracles like curing cancer and healing other diseases, but does not heal amputees, the obvious answer would be that he only performs miracles that could have another explanation. Or put another way he only performs miracles that don’t violate laws of physics, but that he only shifts or manipulates reality within the parameters of the probabalistic laws of physics.
[/quote]

I thought god was supposed to be omnipotent. What you’re saying, essentially, is that miracles don’t exist and everything follows the laws of nature. If that is true, a supernatural god is both impossible and unnecessary.[/quote]

Define Omnipotent. IF God is truely omnipotent to the extreme definition then he can violate the constricts of logical argument. You can’t logically limit a OMNIPOTENT being.

Others have argued that God is omnipotent to the degree that he sets the laws and does but not break his own laws.

If he is the creator of natural laws, and desires not to violate them, then when he heals an amputee, he would do so by going back in time and keeping it from happening in the first place and we’d never know.

Or he would erase any inconsistency from the history of the universe and we’d never know.

Or if he wanted to change something that would be unexplainable, he’d change the laws of physics and then we wouldn’t consider it to be unexplainable anymore.

Lastly, all that my statement requires is that a god would chose not to perform miracles by violating the lmits of physics, but only by manipulating reality within probabilistic constraints. If its a choice then it does not limit omnipotence.

But “some god” could still steer the universe within probability limits, and he actually does this through our unexplainable free will ability to affect the universe within the limits of probability. Some “god” whatever you call it, only need to be the last step beyond the edge of scientific explanation, and that science itself requires. Science can never completely describe reality because science is a creature of reality. It is part of it and a map can never contain the territory that it is mapping, unless the map is greater than the territory.

So as far as God being possible or necessary, that does not require that he perform unexplainable mysteries, except the one unexplainable mystery of non-determinism, which allows the ability for “probabalistic miracles”. Would it be explainable if you flipped a coin and it cam up heads 50 straight times? A god could avoid violating laws, and still basically dtermine the coin flip for every binary quantum event.

“Everytihing” does not follow the laws of physics anyway. The laws of physics are non-deterministic. They only set limits so that part is a misunderstanding too.

[/quote]

Very good post. [/quote]

Damn right! mertdowg, well done.[/quote]

I’m surprised you agree with this, since I thought your position was that the laws of nature are deterministic, which is the opposite of what he said.

On the post itself, the problem is that “god” doesn’t do anything beyond what would be expected anyway, without divine intervention. If a priest could flip a coin and have it come up heads 50 straight times, consistently and in a controlled setting, it would be the headline of the millennium. The problem is they can’t do this. Religious claims never bear out, beyond what would be expected by chance alone.
[/quote]

I do disagree with the last sentence, but the over all post is good. The essence that possibilities are endless. Limits are a controlling factor and therefore determinatory ← (I think I invented a new word! But I like it so I am going to use it)
[/quote]

I still don’t fully understand this. Do you agree that there are multiple but limited possibilities? Like you can walk anywhere inside your house but not through the walls?

That’s basically the essence of teh argument that debunks the amputee paradox. God acts within his nature which is manifest in the laws of physics, and regrowing amputated limbs are inherently different than flipping a coin 50 times heads, which would be equivalent to the curing cancer miracle.

Now the argument against this is that regrowing a limb would still be a probabilistic occurrance, just highly improbably, like flipping a million straight coins. I thought that would be the atheists answer.

I’m not sure one way or another. Growing limbs has thermodynamic implications, while probabalistically healing cancer does not (the coins flips permutations are all energetically equivalent, but a healed or severed limb is not because they have different states of entropy, though locally entropy can decrease probabalistically). So they are different, but are they different enough?