"Why Won't God Heal Amputees?"

[adamdavid80]

Yes, they show impressively that God's creation is far grander that humanity ever imagined.

Which is why we should all respect and live by the Ten Commandments and the wisdom of the Sermon on the Mount and the edict of "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and shut the hell up.

[Bulldog]

Hate to start another thread like this, but.........

Then why did you start it?  Now we will hear a rehash of all the old arguments from each end of the spectrum.

[Norbeone]

They certainly were. But did their discoveries somehow convince you that there was no GOD?

Wasn't my point and no, not really. Though, Darwin did help a little, I suppose.   0:)

[greg]

This website and the challenge posed here are based on the faulty assumption that the existence (or nonexistence) of God can be proven through logic.  One of the definitions of faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

Of course, but there's tons of faiths out there. How do you know which one is true?
If you're blindfolded  and are told to jump off a diving board (and there's a bunch of them lined up), how do you know which one to jump off of? Obviously, if you admit that none of them make much sense to jump off of, why even bother? If there's no logic to any of them, that makes them all the same.
And suppose we do jump off, and land in the water. What about the next guy who jumps off and hits concrete? Or the next guy who falls into a mini volcano and burns to death? (oh, not just to death, but for all eternity.......)
That's why religion needs logic, and I read through this thread and so far haven't found a reply that's logical, but i'll read again.

Then why did you start it?  Now we will hear a rehash of all the old arguments from each end of the spectrum.

i don't know, i'll probably get bored with this thread by tomorrow. 

[greg]

The lowly "Starfish" and the "King Crab" have the power of regeneration. If they lose a limb by accident or removal for commercial reasons, that limb regenerates. It's all in the "genes". When science learns that secret (with the help of GOD) mankind will be able to do the same thing.
Humans can already partially accomplish that feat.
After all, if we cut ourselves, in time, the wound heals. And amazingly, the human "liver" already has the power of regeneration. If a portion (or even an entire lobe) of the liver is removed, IN TIME, IT REGENERATES.
If we already possess one major organ that can accomplish that feat, can the rest of our bodies "learn" to do the same thing? With GODS HELP. we will.

You know how God could've helped? He could've created people, from the very beginning to have limb regeneration! That would mean it wouldn't be "obvious" once they heal, plus society wouldn't have to "wait"for stuff like that. Plus, all the effort and money spent on artificial limb research and development, could directed toward other stuff, like AIDS, maybe.. But of course, he doesn't........ why?

[Norbeone]

You know how God could've helped? He could've created people, from the very beginning to have limb regeneration! That would mean it wouldn't be "obvious" once they heal, plus society wouldn't have to "wait"for stuff like that. Plus, all the effort and money spent on artificial limb research and development, could directed toward other stuff, like AIDS, maybe.. But of course, he doesn't........ why?

Yep you're quite right.

Once evolution was discovered as a fact of nature, the christians had to somehow make out that God was behind it. It's a neverending web of alternations and people shitting themselves.

[drogulus]

This website and the challenge posed here are based on the faulty assumption that the existence (or nonexistence) of God can be proven through logic.  One of the definitions of faith is a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

     No such assumption need be made. It isn't a logical problem anyway. Logic has to have something to work with, some sensory input (senses extended by the prosthetics of science included). If logic could solve a problem like this you'd end up with self consistency as the criterion. In that case all string theories would be true. What we want to know is not what some logical scheme says is possible in principle, but but which of these schemes is instantiated in the world. For that you need evidence, upon which a testable theory can be constructed and confirmed or falsified. If you don't have that you just have an unconfirmed idea that's no more than an abstract formulation.

     The definition of faith looks like a good one to me, since it describes exactly the process everyone uses to get about in the world. The question is always how far beyond evidence should faith be extended, and here you scale according to some measure of plausibility. Faith in personal abilities is known to have an effect on the outcome of performance, and faith in a doctors remedy may assist in getting well. That's because the outcome is sensitive to the internal state you're in, which is an objective factor. The more distant the question is from ones own mental and physical dispositions, the less likely a belief can establish a fact. I'd say the falloff is pretty much a cliff rather than gradual, so you can recover from a serious illness with placebo assistance but can't grow a new limb.

    The old wisdom that faith helps you to change what can be changed is consistent with this. So even by the standard of this old saying, the question is not whether to have faith, but what kinds of faith are consistent with what is known, which, outside the self-consistent realms of logic and mathematics, is always an empirical question.

[Al Moritz]

Yep you're quite right.

Once evolution was discovered as a fact of nature, the christians had to somehow make out that God was behind it. It's a neverending web of alternations and people shitting themselves.

And newer scientific findings show that the laws of nature that allow for evolution in the first place have to be exceedingly special. They are so special that an assumption that they arose by random chance is ludicrous, completely against any common sense (to use your words, people who make that assumption are "shitting themselves"). Common sense says that they clearly point to a designer.

Dawkins once said that evolution for the first time allows one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Yet in my view the discovery of the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature has made atheism now even more unbelievable and intellectually strained than before the discovery of evolution.

[Guido]

Obviously, at some point God had to reveal himself if He wanted to make clear what He wanted from humanity. That this was accompanied by extraordinary events was part of the package of divine revelation. However, these days, as we know this divine revelation, God simply wants us to accept it while, in general, leaving personal freedom to do so untouched by extraordinary signs. At least that is what I infer from all that we observe.

As Brett (Catison), who recently converted from atheism to Catholicism, put it so well here: It is not that there is no evidence for divine revelation, the question is rather if you trust the evidence.

Absolutely. But you believe that the divine revelation these men recieved deliberately left scanty evidence for anyone other than than the original people it was intended for - that way there is some ambiguity left for everyone else as to what is and what isn't true. An example might include Moses recieving the ten commandments... in fact I have been unable to unearth any evidence anywhere of Jews ever being slaves in Egypt during the reign of the Egyption Pharoahs, other than the account given in the bible - is the suggestion that this is a deliberate goal of God's? To me this seems rather perverse and only believable if you think that faith is a vital part of your religion, which facts and knowledge would destroy. One must ask onself, which way round this runs though - does the fact that there is ambiguity about the facts of some of the historical claims in the bible necessitate faith as an integral part of the religion (i.e. faith is to 'plug the gap') or is it that because faith is required in the religion, the evidence is deliberately not compelling (I mean that literally - does not compel anyone to believe). Obviously you are going to disagree with me, but do you at least see where I am coming from?

Also the fine tuning thing. If it's as clear cut as you think it is - doesn't this again compel one to think that God exists, therby removing faith?

Please tell me if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick.

[Norbeone]

And newer scientific findings show that the laws of nature that allow for evolution in the first place have to be exceedingly special. They are so special that an assumption that they arose by random chance is ludicrous, completely against any common sense (to use your words, people who make that assumption are "shitting themselves"). Common sense says that they clearly point to a designer.

Well then, if you're basing your belief upon your own scientific insight, why are you so specifically a christian, and not simply a deist?

[drogulus]

     I don't understand why people who think that the existence of a god can't be proved by logic think this entitles them to accept a positive belief on essentially the same grounds as the placebo effect. Such an effect is not valid beyond an extremely limited range. It certainly wouldn't apply to entities beyond space and time. That's a misuse of the principle.

     And I don't understand how promoting a theory of deliberate hiding of evidence helps you confirm a thesis for which no evidence exists. You can't buttress a questionable thesis with equally questionable support. If nothing supports a god than you stop there.

     I don't have a hidden evidence theory of why the star that exists between Proxima Centauri and us can't be found but yet can somehow be intuited by occult means. Nor do I have a theory of why the evidence of $100,000,000 has gone missing from my checking account. Such a theory requires the same demonstration as the original hypothesis and can't cure its faults.

   
     Incidentally, the admission by proponents that evidence is missing differs not the slightest from the understanding that it doesn't exist. I'm glad we cleared that up. Now we can proceed to an efficient explanation for why the evidence doesn't exist and not waste time trying to uphold a failed existence argument by backdoor means. To admit the evidence is missing is not an alternative to a negative result, it is the negative result.
     

[Al Moritz]

Obviously you are going to disagree with me, but do you at least see where I am coming from?

Sure, I see where you're coming from.

Also the fine tuning thing. If it's as clear cut as you think it is - doesn't this again compel one to think that God exists, therby removing faith?

It has compelled some. Others think in terms of the multiverse or that the laws of nature could not be any other way. Yet most really are not willing to think those things through properly. A supposed necessity of the laws of nature that we observe can be dismissed on logical grounds and it can be shown that the multiverse doesn't really solve the designer problem (we have gone over all of this on "The Religion Thread"). That really only leaves random chance, which is absurd.

Yes, I think the fine-tuning of the laws of nature is compelling, but it cannot be coercing -- only a mathematical proof can be. Those who are not willing to abandon naturalism will always find a way to convince themselves that it is not necessary.

[Al Moritz]

Well then, if you're basing your belief upon your own scientific insight, why are you so specifically a christian, and not simply a deist?

I personally don't base my belief on scientific insight, but scientific insight gives me confirmation of its reasonableness.

As to why I am a Christian? If God cares so much about our universe that he has endowed it with exquisite fine-tuning, it would be rational to assume that he has revealed himself to a resulting life-form that is able to accept his message – us, at the least. Historically it may be reasonably argued that if there was a revelation by God, it first happened to the Jewish people, who then believed in one single God who made all of nature, whereas all other peoples continued to believe in many gods (by the way, the associated demystification of nature into mere things led to a mindset that made the rise of science possible). It may further be argued that the prophecies of the Old Testament regarding the appearance of a saviour reached their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

[greg]

But what does Al have to say about my posts on this page?

[Norbeone]

As to why I am a Christian? If God cares so much about our universe that he has endowed it with exquisite fine-tuning, it would be rational to assume that he has revealed himself to a resulting life-form that is able to accept his message – us, at the least. Christ.

Why is that rational? What makes you think we should assume that the creator would care about communicating to the life he/she/it created? Just because it's what you would do, had you been the creator?

I can just about get past (well not really) people believing in a designer who then just sits back and lets it happen, but all this other nonsense.

Also, if you believe in the christian faith, you basically rule out the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe.

Furthermore, if he really wanted to reveal himself, why not do it in a much more easily and universally perceivable manner?

It seems to me that once you delve into a specific Theism, you have few legs to stand on, and don't really know what you think.

[drogulus]

Also the fine tuning thing. If it's as clear cut as you think it is - doesn't this again compel one to think that God exists, therby removing faith?

     That's correct. If Al is right that it's optional and relative to believers then it's not evidence, which of course it isn't. Fine tuning is a scientifically meaningless concept. How can you tell if something's is fine tuned if you have no idea whatsoever of what a Universe without any tuning would be? It's just an escape hatch concept to load with your intuitions. Dawkins call this the Argument from Personal Incredulity which frequently takes the form of: I can't imagine how everything could be so perfectly arranged... The operative word here is perfect, which has no fixed meaning. The Universe is neither perfect nor imperfect. Perfect signifies feelings we have and not a state of affairs of the Universe itself.

[Al Moritz]

Also, if you believe in the christian faith, you basically rule out the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe.

Huh?

Furthermore, if he really wanted to reveal himself, why not do it in a much more easily and universally perceivable manner?

I think I have answered that already.

[Al Moritz]

     That's correct. If Al is right that it's optional and relative to believers then it's not evidence, which of course it isn't.

Not all valid evidence is scientific evidence (it happens to be evidence from science though, but this is not the same). Were you only to allow scientific evidence as the solely valid evidence, you would not even be able to properly live your daily life, with the evidence-based decisions that you constantly make in it.

[Bulldog]

I personally don't base my belief on scientific insight, but scientific insight gives me confirmation of its reasonableness.

It may further be argued that the prophecies of the Old Testament regarding the appearance of a saviour reached their fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

That sure isn't what jewish folks think.

[greg]

is everyone hovering on this thread just to look at my avatar?..........