So, why WON'T God heal amputees?

[Insp. Clue!So?]

The claim is made that He can cure cancer, heal AIDS, and so on, yet fixing amputated or ill-formed limbs by sprouting new ones seems beyond His, eh, grasp.

Why are God's powers to heel amputees, in effect amputated? Is He not All powerful?

Does He, in His Eternal Goodness and Kindness, harbor ill-feelings toward amputees? Does His great plan for the Universe contain a subsection outlying the specific and necesary disadvantages one acrues upon becoming an amputee?
Why does He, as is claimed, answer prayers to heal dreadful, deadly diseases yet ignore highly debilitating ones like having your leg cut off at the upper-thigh?

If God wants us to be fruitful and multiply, why do not the castrated regrow their ball-sacks?

And so on...

Why does God evidently hate amputees?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

[FortunaMaximus]

Duh. Heard of the ghost-limb effect? Some of 'em get a preview.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

More evidence He hates 'em.

Or that there is no "He".

[FortunaMaximus]

Well, a male giving birth would just [censored] out a pile of crap.

So there you go. don't be too hard on Her.

[IronUnkind]

I've always wondered this myself. I'm uneasy about the whole "god healed me" business anyway, though I don't begrudge those who feel that way. Anyway, biblically, there is an example of this. Jesus healed Malchus, the Roman Soldier whose ear Peter cut off.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The claim is made that He can cure cancer, heal AIDS, and so on, yet fixing amputated or ill-formed limbs by sprouting new ones seems beyond His, eh, grasp.


[/ QUOTE ]
From a Biblical standpoint, what is important to God?

1. Belief in Him.

2. Reliance on Him.

Even in the Bible God chooses to whisper more than he shouts. Why would this be any different?

[BluffTHIS!]

Why doesn't God make every person on earth a lottery millionaire so that no one has to work?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't God make every person on earth a lottery millionaire so that no one has to work?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference. People aren't as apt to credit divine intervention for their lottery winnings.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't God make every person on earth a lottery millionaire so that no one has to work?

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be the point? Keep it random, have them earn it their own ways?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't God make every person on earth a lottery millionaire so that no one has to work?

[/ QUOTE ]

So isn't this just as appropriate a response to anyone who claims that God healed them or that prayer took away their cancer?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't God make every person on earth a lottery millionaire so that no one has to work?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a very good and legitimate question. If you were inflicted with cancer or some other disease, would you not pray for God to fix your condition? Yet if you were to lose a limb, would you even think of praying for a new one? So...

Is it because you'd view the loss of limb as "after the fact", i.e., it is was already God's will for you to lose the limb, otherwise He would've prevented you from losing it in the first place. So no need to pray. Or...

Would you just consider the growth of a new limb too far fetched even for God? Here's what I think...

You KNOW full well no one has ever re-grown a limb. It's impossible. It's illogical even for the most faithful. So you wouldn't bother praying. Yet, you know of people who have recovered from disease and even cancer. This causes you to believe God has control over that. But why not a new limb?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You KNOW full well no one has ever re-grown a limb. It's impossible. It's illogical even for the most faithful. So you wouldn't bother praying. Yet, you know of people who have recovered from disease and even cancer. This causes you to believe God has control over that. But why not a new limb?

[/ QUOTE ]

god can do anything nature can do, he's just given credit for the ones we don't have photo's of. Some phrase it as "god can't be illogical, or some such". Apparently new limbs are only logical for lobsters.
It's interesting that even if those dammed atheist scientists develop a method to regrow them, god still won't be able to.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

Its not impossible for a limb to be regrown. Not even close. It just wont happen without help.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't God make every person on earth a lottery millionaire so that no one has to work?

[/ QUOTE ]

So isn't this just as appropriate a response to anyone who claims that God healed them or that prayer took away their cancer?

[/ QUOTE ]


My question actually has a couple important points that others haven't seen either. The first is that if God healed all who asked of whatever disease or infirmity, then no one would value same very highly. And also no one would come to know that God still loves them and that life still has meaning even with such infirmities, especially because our lives here whether filled mainly with happiness or tragedy, or lived in a state of relative wealth or poverty, aren't the eternal end for which God has destined us. This life is but the sweep of a second hand on the scale of eternity, and loving God as He loves us is more important than anything else in our lives here, including health and prosperity or lack thereof.

And when God does choose in the small percentage of the time to intervene and heal someone, that really isn't just for that person, but for all, so that all may know He does answer prayers, even if the answer isn't what we would desire. If you pray to be healed and are open to God's grace then He will do one of two things. He will either heal you, or He will give you the strength to deal with your infirmity while you focus on living this life so as to be with Him forever in the next. Both are an answer to your prayers.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are God's powers to heel amputees, in effect amputated? Is He not All powerful?

[/ QUOTE ]

can the lord make a burrito so hot the he himself cannot eat it?

Barron

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't God make every person on earth a lottery millionaire so that no one has to work?

[/ QUOTE ]

So isn't this just as appropriate a response to anyone who claims that God healed them or that prayer took away their cancer?

[/ QUOTE ]


My question actually has a couple important points that others haven't seen either. The first is that if God healed all who asked of whatever disease or infirmity, then no one would value same very highly. And also no one would come to know that God still loves them and that life still has meaning even with such infirmities, especially because our lives here whether filled mainly with happiness or tragedy, or lived in a state of relative wealth or poverty, aren't the eternal end for which God has destined us. This life is but the sweep of a second hand on the scale of eternity, and loving God as He loves us is more important than anything else in our lives here, including health and prosperity or lack thereof.

And when God does choose in the small percentage of the time to intervene and heal someone, that really isn't just for that person, but for all, so that all may know He does answer prayers, even if the answer isn't what we would desire. If you pray to be healed and are open to God's grace then He will do one of two things. He will either heal you, or He will give you the strength to deal with your infirmity while you focus on living this life so as to be with Him forever in the next. Both are an answer to your prayers.

[/ QUOTE ]

But even if everything you say here is correct, aren't you the least suspicious that He has never restored a limb?

[BluffTHIS!]

I'm actually more suspicious of why He hasn't struck one of you naysayers with a bolt of lightning as an object example to the rest.

[Lestat]

You can dismiss and make light of it, but I thought it was an excellent question. It me made think and I'm already an atheist. It goes to show that no amount of reasoning or logic will ever make you question your beliefs. I'm sure you think that's a good thing, but I think it's sad to be so oblivious to the reality around you. Hey wait a minute....

Why is my hair all of a sudden standing straight on end?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually more suspicious of why He hasn't struck one of you naysayers with a bolt of lightning as an object example to the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would holding to a hanging power outlet that wasn't turned off when I was about 11 count.

Felt so good I touched it twice. Shockingly, I'm still walking around.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif Some Kobe for Jobe.

[benjdm]

God doesn't heal amputees for the same reason Santa Claus doesn't give me presents.

[BluffTHIS!]

That's right benj, because you don't believe in them and because you are a bad boy.

[benjdm]

Actually, BluffThis!, it's because Santa Claus is also a human-invented fictional character. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
And when God does choose in the small percentage of the time to intervene and heal someone, that really isn't just for that person, but for all, so that all may know He does answer prayers, even if the answer isn't what we would desire.

[/ QUOTE ]
sometimes he answers their prayers and runner runner straights their 32 to beat the set of aces.

but as we all know, he does it for the benefit of the non-believer.

chez

[untouchable]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are God's powers to heel amputees, in effect amputated? Is He not All powerful?

[/ QUOTE ]

can the lord make a burrito so hot the he himself cannot eat it?

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

He tried that once. Then the big bang happened.

[FortunaMaximus]

Followed by a steady stream of nasty stuff. I'm not sure he has the cure either, but at least there's pink stuff to enjoy.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
And when God does choose in the small percentage of the time to intervene and heal someone, that really isn't just for that person, but for all, so that all may know He does answer prayers, even if the answer isn't what we would desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

First. If his goal is indeed to indicate that he answers prayers, then why do the "miraculous" healings happen at exactly the rate of natural spontaneous healings? Isn't God providing evidence against himself by doing such a thing? After all, Satanists appealing to Satan will be healed at the same rate - what is God trying to say, here?

Second. "Ask and ye shall receive." Why does God not give us what we desire, given his rather direct promise to the contrary?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why are God's powers to heel amputees, in effect amputated? Is He not All powerful?

[/ QUOTE ]

can the lord make a burrito so hot the he himself cannot eat it?

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

This isnt the same at all. It is theoretically possibly for ME to regrow someones limb. I just don't know how (yet).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And when God does choose in the small percentage of the time to intervene and heal someone, that really isn't just for that person, but for all, so that all may know He does answer prayers, even if the answer isn't what we would desire.

[/ QUOTE ]
sometimes he answers their prayers and runner runner straights their 32 to beat the set of aces.

but as we all know, he does it for the benefit of the non-believer.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

And he doesn't answer my prayers because doing so would devalue the few times my aces actually did hold up!

[TomBrooks]

Regrowing limbs or undoing castrations on people is not important to god, nor would it be to people who knew/understood god.

That being said, there are some animals that regrow limbs. Starfish come to mind.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why does He, as is claimed, answer prayers to heal dreadful, deadly diseases yet ignore highly debilitating ones like having your leg cut off at the upper-thigh?


[/ QUOTE ]

1 Corinthians 12

7Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself!
8Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me.
9And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness " Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
10Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Paul is usually considered the most empowered Christian in the New Testament but God would not heal his "thorn".

James say "You ask but do not receive because you ask" for the wrong reasons.

Jesus gave sight to people blind from birth, healed paralytics and raised Lazarus from the dead. Fairly impressive, at least as much as growing a new limb.

And finally, if God did grow a new limb for someone, all the atheists in this thread would say "Wow, isn't evolution neat?" or "Ok but why doesn't God ....".

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Second. "Ask and ye shall receive." Why does God not give us what we desire, given his rather direct promise to the contrary?

[/ QUOTE ]


Because what He wants us to ask for, and which He will give in abundance, is for spiritual things. He will also help us with material things, but He is only certain to do so with a sufficiency, and not an abundance necessarily, although the "health and wealth" type of fundamentalists believe differently.

[PLOlover]

I don't things like that are covered contractually by the old or new covenant. Things like health are, however, provided you follow the health laws in the bible, like don't eat fat and stuff like that.

Just my limited understanding.

[malorum]

At least in Islam the answer for this one is simple. He doesn't want to undermine the deterent value of his anti-theft legislation.

[Prodigy54321]

there seems to be no use of ever arguing about what god does or doesn't do...

anything that happens happens..certain natural events are needed for things to happen..god never makes them happen without those natural events...

if I throw a ball into the air and it falls back to the ground...

science will look at that and say that gravity is responsible...believers will look at it and say that god is responsible...

since this will never happen without gravity, gravity must be the chosen vehicle of god anyway..I'm not sure whether or not god could do it without gravity, but he at least chooses not to..

there can be no evidence for or against what god does or does not do..

there also need to be no reason..since god needs no reasons for doing anything..

god can supposedly do anything, yet he seems to choose to only "do" what can already be done by natural means...and only at the rate that it would be done naturally as well..why? I have no clue..and we cannot know why..

but common sense would tell us that nothing extraordinary is happening

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
there also need to be no reason..since god needs no reasons for doing anything..

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just not true. God promises you certain benefits if you follow his rules. There are also penalty clauses in there. This is why some people think AIDS is gods natural penalty for breaking his rule against homosexuality.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there also need to be no reason..since god needs no reasons for doing anything..

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just not true. God promises you certain benefits if you follow his rules. There are also penalty clauses in there. This is why some people think AIDS is gods natural penalty for breaking his rule against homosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

it may not be true of a specific god

if you consider only that there COULD be a supernatural being that MAY be doing things..there is no way to determnine what he is and is not doing.

but I maintain that even with the christian god, he needs no reasons...humans can come up with excuses for why things happen...

the bible says x..y happens which is conflicting with x...christians come up with an explaination..which is all just speculation...you can never come to the conclusion that something is in conflict with what god supposedly is or does..

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
it may not be true of a specific god

if you consider only that there COULD be a supernatural being that MAY be doing things..there is no way to determnine what he is and is not doing.

but I maintain that even with the christian god, he needs no reasons...humans can come up with excuses for why things happen...

the bible says x..y happens which is conflicting with x...christians come up with an explaination..which is all just speculation...you can never come to the conclusion that something is in conflict with what god supposedly is or does..

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I meant in the biblical paradigm. The only case I know of involving breach of contract was with Job and how God screwed him over, so I guess God will owe him something extra in the resurrection. According to the biblical paradigm of course.

Another thing straight literal biblers believe is that if you die before 70 years old then you are in breach of contract because the contract with god calls for you to live at least 70 years, unless you break the rules in which case no.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Regrowing limbs or undoing castrations on people is not important to god, nor would it be to people who knew/understood god.

That being said, there are some animals that regrow limbs. Starfish come to mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good of you to tell us what is important to god. Obviously curing cancer makes the list...how about clearing up this nasty painful urination I got going?

[David Sklansky]

"First. If his goal is indeed to indicate that he answers prayers, then why do the "miraculous" healings happen at exactly the rate of natural spontaneous healings? Isn't God providing evidence against himself by doing such a thing? After all, Satanists appealing to Satan will be healed at the same rate - what is God trying to say, here?"

Bingo. And the best reason to disbelieve there is a personal god.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"First. If his goal is indeed to indicate that he answers prayers, then why do the "miraculous" healings happen at exactly the rate of natural spontaneous healings? Isn't God providing evidence against himself by doing such a thing? After all, Satanists appealing to Satan will be healed at the same rate - what is God trying to say, here?"

Bingo. And the best reason to disbelieve there is a personal god.

[/ QUOTE ]
We've been here before and its only a reason to disbelieve in a personal god that answers non spiritual prayers.

Praying for strength, guidance etc. might work. I suspect it does but only as well as a few deep breathes or smelling the coffee etc. Much harder to prove either way.

chez

[David Sklansky]

Your worst post ever. At least as far as making an argument is concerned.

"Jesus gave sight to people blind from birth, healed paralytics and raised Lazarus from the dead. Fairly impressive, at least as much as growing a new limb."

The OP wasn't talking about biblical miracles that didn't happen to include reversing amputations. That "oversight" would be irrelevant if the other miracles had in fact occurred. He is talking about the present day where God supposedly answers prayers including healing incurable diseases. But never in cases where the act would make it a clear cut miracle. And in non clear cut cases the odd event never occurs far more often than a statistical analysis could allow.

"And finally, if God did grow a new limb for someone, all the atheists in this thread would say "Wow, isn't evolution neat?" or "Ok but why doesn't God ....". "

This is so ridiculous that I think you were partly joking. But you were also partly serious. Someone growing a new limb without scientific breakthroughs would never be attributed to evolution. And no atheist, even the very few unconvinced ones, would ask for or claim that a second miracle of this type would be necessary to make the point.

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
madnak: "First. If his goal is indeed to indicate that he answers prayers, then why do the "miraculous" healings happen at exactly the rate of natural spontaneous healings?...

DS: Bingo. And the best reason to disbelieve there is a personal god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, believing in a "personal god" is a problem a lot of people have. There is a rather common notion that god is some kind of personal being with a personality and a personal interest in what happens to them or to earth or other earthlings. Thus all these questions come up like why doesn't god cure cancer, fix amputees or end war.

These believers point to various things that have happened as if god took some kind of personal action to make it so. You wind up with people defending the existance of god who have little or no idea what it is, and people refuting it's existance who don't know what it is they are refuting.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
And no atheist, even the very few unconvinced ones, would ask for or claim that a second miracle of this type would be necessary to make the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

If someone - anyone - can be shown to have regrown a limb overnight, I'll have to do some serious thinking about what I believe. That doesn't mean I'll leap to the conclusion that Christianity is true, but it does mean I'll need to reconsider the religious element of my worldview.

If such a thing were to happen three times in a row as a direct result of Christian prayer, I might become Christian on the spot. One of the common features of atheists is a willingness to change their views given certain evidence. That's one reason why atheism is so much stronger than theism - it's falsifiable, and yet it has never been falsified.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
That's just not true. God promises you certain benefits if you follow his rules. There are also penalty clauses in there. This is why some people think AIDS is gods natural penalty for breaking his rule against homosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to this hypothesis, there should be a very strong correlation between misfortune and the violation of God's rules. Even if you allow for the most extreme fundamentalist positions (people in Africa get sick because they're heathens, people who get AIDs get sick because they're sexually immoral) there is only a relatively small correlation. Possibly even a negative correlation, given that Christianity is increasing among the poor and decreasing among the wealthy (and there is indeed a strong correlation between poverty and disease).

If Christians were to make predictions like the ones you made above, in full honesty, the situation would be simple. The problem is that when a good Christian fails to receive God's benefits, some other convenient excuse arises. "Oh, God promises benefits if you follow his rules, but he makes all kinds of exceptions too." Or even better, "no human is capable of following God's covenant, so nobody deserves the benefits he promises." These kinds of positions aren't rational, and statements like the one above only serve to indict your religion. The attempt to "explain" peoples' afflictions according to their sins unravels very quickly, because we now have a wealth of information about incredible exceptions on both sides.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
According to this hypothesis, there should be a very strong correlation between misfortune and the violation of God's rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's why I picked AIDS as an example because it is still widely a homosexual disease in the west.

You can use heart disease if you like, because eating animal fat is prohibited in the bible.

Things like getting in an auto accident or something though I tend to take your view even though the die hard bible guy will say that if you follow the rules you will not have bad luck.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Insp. Clue!So?:

Ironically, I recently read an article put out by the Life Extension Foundation on this subject. Apparently the military is now funding research in this exact area hoping that someday soildiers who do lose an arm or a leg can grow it back.

The thinking is that certain animals, such as starfish, can regenerate a loss limb, and that the genes which allow it to do so should also be present in humans. However, for some unknown reason they never express themselves and are barred from doing so by other genes which direct healing through scarring.

So if it can be figured out how to turn off the normnally active scarring genes, and turn on the dormant regrow a limb gene, then amputees just might recover that lost arm or leg.

It was also estimated that this research would take at least twenty years before there were any meaningful results.

Best wishes,
Mason

[yukoncpa]

Hi Mason,
I was reading something similar. Also, as it turns out, a new born human baby can regrow a lost fingertip, but we lose this ability once we become older. Here's a discussion from the straight dope. (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnewlimb.html)

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
It was also estimated that this research would take at least twenty years before there were any meaningful results.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been widely reported that a human ear was grown on a mouse. So theoretically right now we have the technology to grow a human limb on a host animal and then transplant that limb or organ to a human recipient.

Different than growing your own, but the amazing thing is that it is being done today.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The OP wasn't talking about biblical miracles that didn't happen to include reversing amputations.


[/ QUOTE ]

He said this, though:

[ QUOTE ]

Why are God's powers to heel amputees, in effect amputated? Is He not All powerful?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have never commented on extra-Biblical miracles and am not doing so now. I'm simply stating that God has demonstrated His power as reported in the Bible. I've even explained to you before what I believe are the purposes of miracles in Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]

This is so ridiculous that I think you were partly joking.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What about MM's post? And it will be attributed to evolution, just as is morality, reason, logic and everything else.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone growing a new limb without scientific breakthroughs would never be attributed to evolution. And no atheist, even the very few unconvinced ones, would ask for or claim that a second miracle of this type would be necessary to make the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very naive. Whether credit was given to "evolution" (whatever that means) or not, there would certainly be no shortage of skeptics who would claim (perhaps rightly) that a natural explanation could best account for this.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the common features of atheists is a willingness to change their views given certain evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a common feature of humankind, and atheists are no exception -- if only because a large portion of their membership are not so much "brights" as they are "pissed off ex-Christians." You may be one of the honest ones, but I'd say that is to your credit rather than to Atheism's.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
First. If his goal is indeed to indicate that he answers prayers, then why do the "miraculous" healings happen at exactly the rate of natural spontaneous healings?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone has calculated the rate of natural spontaneous healings? Facts and figures please. Even if such a number exists, what good is it in terms of this discussion?

If unexplained healings have always been categorized as "natural and spontaneous" such that we can derive a rate at which they happen, by what criteria can a similar event ever be considered a miracle?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Bingo. And the best reason to disbelieve there is a personal god.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I don't know that any of this has been rigorously documented, but I also don't care much, since my faith is not predicated upon divine intervention in a hospital setting. Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me if God refused to dance for those who wish to scrutinize his handiwork.

If God works miracles in this way, then I suspect it is a demonstration of his love, not his existence.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me if God refused to dance for those who wish to scrutinize his handiwork.

If God works miracles in this way, then I suspect it is a demonstration of his love, not his existence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, er, Bingo.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me if God refused to dance for those who wish to scrutinize his handiwork.


[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, er, Bingo.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying is that all amputees are wishing to scrutinize his handiwork!

Er, your bingo call was a premature one! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying is that all amputees are wishing to scrutinize his handiwork!


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly certain nobody was saying this.

[MidGe]

Ah well, it seems unequivocal that god's love doesn't extend to amputees for some unfathomable ( /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) reason.

[David Sklansky]

"If unexplained healings have always been categorized as "natural and spontaneous" such that we can derive a rate at which they happen, by what criteria can a similar event ever be considered a miracle?"

When the healing is related to prayer or good deeds or some parameter associated with God.

Meanwhile there are many possible miracles that can be approximately calculsted. Like a pattern on a grilled cheese sandwich that looks a little like Mary.

[David Sklansky]

"Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me if God refused to dance for those who wish to scrutinize his handiwork."

But that means basically no miracles. Because they can be scrutinized after the fact. Certainly none near biblical proportions could ever happen if your thesis is true. And if they can't a lot of Christians will be sorely disappointed.

By the way, were there any big miracles after Jesus left the scene?

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
But that means basically no miracles. Because they can be scrutinized after the fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that like saying the wavefunction collapse is a myth? Of course miracles may be scrutinized, but that doesn't mean God will reveal them as such under observation. The ability to prevent people from looking up his sleeve assumes God's omniscience. I am not arguing that this is the case, anyhow. Only that it wouldn't surprise me if it were.

[ QUOTE ]
Certainly none near biblical proportions could ever happen if your thesis is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under my "thesis", if God decided to turn the moon red or whatever, it would be because his reasons for doing so superceded his prior desire to hide his fingerprints. But this isn't really some deeply held conviction of mine; it's not any kind of conviction. Just a thought.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, were there any big miracles after Jesus left the scene?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by big. Paul's conversion (blinding light, booming voice) came after Jesus. Modern day: I guess there's really only anecdotal evidence of such. Catholics seem much more keen on this type of stuff than I am. Notwithstanding future events, I'm basically skeptical of most claims of dramatic divine intervention, apparitions, etc.

Some of this miracle talk seems much ado about nothing anyway. We presume that "miracles" are supernatural, but it seems to me that a consequence of God interacting with the physical world is that these interactions would, by definition, take place within the laws of physics (though they might augment our understanding thereof).

[David Sklansky]

"Some of this miracle talk seems much ado about nothing anyway."

Then I have another suggestion for you guys (since you seemed to take to my other one regarding "assuming").

Stop talking about praying for an earthly outcome. You want to pray as thanks, to say you are sorry, or to ask for entrance to heaven, then fine. But no more of this praying that the kidnapper will bring back your baby, that the vasectomy will go well or that your team will win the Super Bowl. You want to win people over to Christianity or some other religion for that matter, stop dangling nonsensical carrots in front of the uneducated. Leave that to the Scientologists.

[IronUnkind]

I guess out-of-context quotes serve as convenient stepping stools on the way up the soapbox. In general, I agree that the purpose of prayer is not to rub the magic lamp but rather to communicate with God. But I don't know why it's so annoying to you that someone should pray for the safe return of their kidnapped child. Moreover, your point doesn't follow any of this discussion because such an outcome doesn't require a miracle in the proper sense.

Do you really think Christians use hope as part of some ploy to dupe the uneducated? I can tell you that in most cases these carrots are offered with the utmost sincerity. You may regard such folks as nonsensical, but their agenda is not insidious.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I can tell you that in most cases these carrots are offered with the utmost sincerity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It doesn't make the carrots either juicy or real.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Mason,
I was reading something similar. Also, as it turns out, a new born human baby can regrow a lost fingertip, but we lose this ability once we become older. Here's a discussion from the straight dope. (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mnewlimb.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

They taught us in embryo that if you implant a bead soaked in the right signalling factors anywhere in the AER (basically a line of skin that covers the limb bud as its developing) you can pretty much make as many arms or legs as you want, say, in a chicken embryo. The thing is, these signalling factors and the genes that secrete them get shut off. Obviously this is an incredibly complicated process, but as I mentioned earlier, there is no reason this can't eventually become routine. We wouldn't even need to do anything special, if we could understand and reset the genes, the body would do all the work on its own. Heck, it wouldnt even take that long, probably.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
We wouldn't even need to do anything special, if we could understand and reset the genes

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems contradictory.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
"Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me if God refused to dance for those who wish to scrutinize his handiwork."

But that means basically no miracles. Because they can be scrutinized after the fact. Certainly none near biblical proportions could ever happen if your thesis is true. And if they can't a lot of Christians will be sorely disappointed.

By the way, were there any big miracles after Jesus left the scene?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just individual ones, perhaps. It's fallacious to discredit the possibility, as it's only in the recent century that mass media and hype have rendered this a commonplace news item. And in such a flood of utter dreck, one has to realize that some of those occurences go unmentioned or even some of the reported ones aren't untrue.

Was his name-o.

~FM

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We wouldn't even need to do anything special, if we could understand and reset the genes

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems contradictory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, ok, I guess thats special. What I meant was basically we could just turn the genes on and watch em go!

My whole point about this topic is that there are only technologically hurdles to overcome, not logical ones, and so this is easily within God's grasp. The is most assuredly NOT a "can God make a burrito so hot..." situation. God curing cancer ~= God regrowing a leg.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The OP wasn't talking about biblical miracles that didn't happen to include reversing amputations.


[/ QUOTE ]

He said this, though:

[ QUOTE ]

Why are God's powers to heel amputees, in effect amputated? Is He not All powerful?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have never commented on extra-Biblical miracles and am not doing so now. I'm simply stating that God has demonstrated His power as reported in the Bible. I've even explained to you before what I believe are the purposes of miracles in Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]

This is so ridiculous that I think you were partly joking.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What about MM's post? And it will be attributed to evolution, just as is morality, reason, logic and everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is an infinite number of undetectable supernatural explainations for any event...

can you blame someone for not arbitrarily choosing one instead of going with an explaination that has evidence to support it?

[ QUOTE ]
Really? What about MM's post? And it will be attributed to evolution, just as is morality, reason, logic and everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

and what is this supposed to mean..if that actually happens, it won't be attributed to evolution...it will be attributed to the scientists who work on the project..and the science behind how it works..

so if they do find a way to make someone regrow a leg or something...and they try it and it works...you will say.."look what God did!?!?!"

I guess that god just likes to wait until we can do it ourselves before he actually does it..how can you actually come to the conlcusion that something supernatural occurred?

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]


By the way, were there any big miracles after Jesus left the scene?

[/ QUOTE ]

The second chapter of Acts refers to the apostles speaking to a diverse group and everyone heard it in their native tongue. This occurred at Pentecost which is after the crucifixion so you could say Jesus left the scene, however it’s also tied into the immediate events after the resurrection, so possibly not the time frame that you are looking for.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the common features of atheists is a willingness to change their views given certain evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a common feature of humankind, and atheists are no exception -- if only because a large portion of their membership are not so much "brights" as they are "pissed off ex-Christians." You may be one of the honest ones, but I'd say that is to your credit rather than to Atheism's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, certainly. Another common feature of atheists is that they credit themselves for their achievements, they don't credit their religious beliefs.

I think we did a set of polls awhile ago, where atheists and theists were each asked whether they'd change their beliefs if presented with the appropriate evidence. Most of the atheists said 'yes,' virtually all of the theists said 'no.' Atheists put on a smug front, but we almost never consider ourselves infallible.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, certainly. Another common feature of atheists is that they credit themselves for their achievements, they don't credit their religious beliefs.

I think we did a set of polls awhile ago, where atheists and theists were each asked whether they'd change their beliefs if presented with the appropriate evidence. Most of the atheists said 'yes,' virtually all of the theists said 'no.' Atheists put on a smug front, but we almost never consider our views and beliefs infallible.

[/ QUOTE ]

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If God works miracles in this way, then I suspect it is a demonstration of his love, not his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course your reasoning is iron-clad. That's because you start with assumptions that aren't falsifiable. Obviously God may perform miracles within the context of miracles being empirically unverifiable. So may the flying spaghetti monster, for that matter - it's impossible to refute such reasoning.

However, given that God is doing so much work skewing statistics so that nobody can see his influence, I think my response to Bluff is even stronger. My post responds to the following:

[ QUOTE ]
And when God does choose in the small percentage of the time to intervene and heal someone, that really isn't just for that person, but for all, so that all may know He does answer prayers, even if the answer isn't what we would desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, if the goal is for "all to know" that "He does answer prayers," then one would think he wouldn't skew the results of prayers so nobody will know. Given that statistically there is no indication prayer helps anybody, the purpose Bluff describes isn't very plausible.

[madnak]

I see them as an extension of ourselves. When a Christian suggests he's 100% certain of something, he's indicating that his mind is capable of infallible understanding of that thing. The Christian myth is the story of the infallible sinner.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I see them as an extension of ourselves. When a Christian suggests he's 100% certain of something, he's indicating that his mind is capable of infallible understanding of that thing. The Christian myth is the story of the infallible sinner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats actually a really good point. I will make sure to use that the next time I pwn a Christian, thanks. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

can you blame someone for not arbitrarily choosing one instead of going with an explaination that has evidence to support it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity isn't arbitrary and it has evidence to support it.

[ QUOTE ]

and what is this supposed to mean..if that actually happens, it won't be attributed to evolution...it will be attributed to the scientists who work on the project..and the science behind how it works..


[/ QUOTE ]

So do atheists attribute morality to man or evolution?

[ QUOTE ]

so if they do find a way to make someone regrow a leg or something...and they try it and it works...you will say.."look what God did!?!?!"


[/ QUOTE ]

In a sense, yes. One event can have more than one cause. My point in referring to MM's post is that whatever happens in the universe will be given a "natural" explanation because, since God can't exist, since it isn't possible that God should exist, since I would just lay down and die if God did or even could exist, there must be a "natural" explanation and I will die finding it, and if I can't, well, man someday will be able to explain it without God.

[madnak]

That's a blatant mischaracterization. If Christianity makes a falsifiable prediction, and the prediction holds out, that will increase the credibility of Christianity. So far, Christians haven't been able to agree on any prediction - and virtually all the falsifiable predictions that have been by some sect or prophet have, in fact, been falsified.

There's no such thing as evidence without falsifiability.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the atheists said 'yes,' virtually all of the theists said 'no.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Not surprising, but I take the results with a grain of salt, as there are a lot of people who may be intellectually honest but who are not honest with themselves. I would expect MidGe, for instance, to say that he would change his mind given sufficient evidence, but we both know that he is much less likely to change than you or chezlaw.

Additionally, many Christians have already committed themselves to a means (faith) of evaluating the noumenal realm which precludes a change of mind. This should not be seen as a claim of infallibility. It is just that they take their metaphysics seriously, and they believe that empiricism can't answer these types of questions. I suspect that most atheists deny the phenomenon/noumena distinction -- even if they are unfamiliar with this terminology.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the atheists said 'yes,' virtually all of the theists said 'no.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Not surprising, but I take the results with a grain of salt, as there are a lot of people who may be intellectually honest but who are not honest with themselves. I would expect MidGe, for instance, to say that he would change his mind given sufficient evidence, but we both know that he is much less likely to change than you or chezlaw.

Additionally, many Christians have already committed themselves to a means (faith) of evaluating the noumenal realm which precludes a change of mind. This should not be seen as a claim of infallibility. It is just that they take their metaphysics seriously, and they believe that empiricism can't answer these types of questions. I suspect that most atheists deny the phenomenon/noumena distinction -- even if they are unfamiliar with this terminology.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=69 80169&Searchpage=1&Main=6980169&Words=resurrection +txag007&topic=&Search=true#Post6980169) is the poll he means, I wouldn't call 42% "most".

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
So may the flying spaghetti monster, for that matter - it's impossible to refute such reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Minus points for mentioning the played-out FSM. By the way, almost everyone who uses this argument fails to acknowledge that spaghetti monster and pink unicorns fail to measure up conceptually to an Absolute Monism (whether it be Yahweh or whatever). It doesn't do its job as a reductio either, as its goofiness obscures the real issues. To its credit, FSM does seem to provide ample opportunity for atheists to bask in their self-perceived superiority, which is, I gather, their favorite sport.

Anyhow, as I've said more than a few times: I AM NOT TAKING THIS POSITION VIS A VIS MIRACLES. I was only demonstrating that it is plausible given the nature of the topic (in which God's existence is assumed). Notwithstanding FSM, falsifiability and parcimony are formidable hurdles, but not impassable ones.

[ QUOTE ]
See, if the goal is for "all to know" that "He does answer prayers," then one would think he wouldn't skew the results of prayers so nobody will know. Given that statistically there is no indication prayer helps anybody, the purpose Bluff describes isn't very plausible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that I share Bluff's assessment, but I agree that you cripple his argument if your facts are correct.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I will make sure to use that the next time I pwn a Christian, thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I encourage you to try it on me.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the atheists said 'yes,' virtually all of the theists said 'no.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Not surprising, but I take the results with a grain of salt, as there are a lot of people who may be intellectually honest but who are not honest with themselves. I would expect MidGe, for instance, to say that he would change his mind given sufficient evidence, but we both know that he is much less likely to change than you or chezlaw.

Additionally, many Christians have already committed themselves to a means (faith) of evaluating the noumenal realm which precludes a change of mind. This should not be seen as a claim of infallibility. It is just that they take their metaphysics seriously, and they believe that empiricism can't answer these types of questions. I suspect that most atheists deny the phenomenon/noumena distinction -- even if they are unfamiliar with this terminology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you have a point. Given that I deny the distinction, it's rather hard to ask an unbiased question. But let's rephrase - is there some noumenon that would change your views?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=69 80169&Searchpage=1&Main=6980169&Words=resurrection +txag007&topic=&Search=true#Post6980169) is the poll he means, I wouldn't call 42% "most".

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Minus points for mentioning the played-out FSM. By the way, almost everyone who uses this argument fails to acknowledge that spaghetti monster and pink unicorns fail to measure up conceptually to an Absolute Monism (whether it be Yahweh or whatever).

[/ QUOTE ]

They're just suggestions of form for the Absolute Monism. Just as Christians label God a "he" and ascribe gender to "him." Given your positions I wonder if you think that conception of God is valid. Regardless, if we're applying gender to God, we can also apply shape - that of a flying spaghetti monster!

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't do its job as a reductio either, as its goofiness obscures the real issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

The goofiness is the issue - FSM is a way to say "this whole argument is just getting silly." I don't think it has any rational foundation - it's just a very silly image so it has an emotional impact.

[ QUOTE ]
falsifiability and parcimony are formidable hurdles, but not impassable ones

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but it'd take a miracle...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will make sure to use that the next time I pwn a Christian, thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I encourage you to try it on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we both know that the average Christian and those who call themselves Christian on this forum are worlds apart. I learn things from you (and BluffTHIS, and others) whereas I have a hard time learning anything from those who havent taken any time to flesh out their own views on things. I may try to win a point around here, but I certainly don't attempt to pwn anyone. I'm not nearly as good at Christianity as the best Christians...but I'm probably better than the average one.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Minus points for mentioning the played-out FSM. By the way, almost everyone who uses this argument fails to acknowledge that spaghetti monster and pink unicorns fail to measure up conceptually to an Absolute Monism (whether it be Yahweh or whatever).

[/ QUOTE ]

They're just suggestions of form for the Absolute Monism. Just as Christians label God a "he" and ascribe gender to "him." Given your positions I wonder if you think that conception of God is valid. Regardless, if we're applying gender to God, we can also apply shape - that of a flying spaghetti monster!

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't do its job as a reductio either, as its goofiness obscures the real issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

The goofiness is the issue - FSM is a way to say "this whole argument is just getting silly." I don't think it has any rational foundation - it's just a very silly image so it has an emotional impact.

[ QUOTE ]
falsifiability and parcimony are formidable hurdles, but not impassable ones

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but it'd take a miracle...

[/ QUOTE ]

Plus, honestly, how can you begrudge any injection into a thread which gives the potential of using the phrase "His noodly appendage?" There is some great poetry to be had in the Bible but I think it pales to that found in the great works of the followers of the FSM.

[IronUnkind]

This was a humble and sensible answer, one which wins you my respect.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? What about MM's post? And it will be attributed to evolution, just as is morality, reason, logic and everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

the choice of one is arbitrary..some say that god A is responsible, some say that god B is responsible, some say that god C is responsible...

science cannot just choose the christian god out of these just because a lot of people believe in that god...and the specifics of that god would have to be known anyway...which they can't..


[ QUOTE ]
So do atheists attribute morality to man or evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

morality is not an absolute thing..

individual moralities can be attributed to human tinkering..like religion...

but there is a lot of evidence to support the fact that the basic principles of what we call morality evolved over time....what evidence do you have that suggests otherwise??


[ QUOTE ]
In a sense, yes. One event can have more than one cause. My point in referring to MM's post is that whatever happens in the universe will be given a "natural" explanation because, since God can't exist, since it isn't possible that God should exist, since I would just lay down and die if God did or even could exist, there must be a "natural" explanation and I will die finding it, and if I can't, well, man someday will be able to explain it without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you'll forgive me if I consider it completely ridiculous to actually say that god is responsible for growing that limb...in any meaningful sense that is..since if this god created the universe..he is responsible for it..but to say it in the sense that people say things like..I prayed to god and he healed me or whatever..is simply ridiculous

science CANNOT consider this anyway..it cannot say that the christian god is a possibility, but allah is not, and osiris is not...

as I said, there is an infinite number of undetectable supernatural explainations for any event...but since these events never happen under any other circumstances than how they can naturally, it is silly to consider any of these unfalsifiable, undetectable possibilities..

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the choice of one is arbitrary..some say that god A is responsible, some say that god B is responsible, some say that god C is responsible.


[/ QUOTE ]

Many people say many things about many different subjects - making a choice isn't necessarily arbitrary just because there are many choices.

[ QUOTE ]

science cannot just choose the christian god


[/ QUOTE ]

Who says it can? At least according to the definition of modern science.

[ QUOTE ]

morality is not an absolute thing..


[/ QUOTE ]

Relative morality is at best amorality.

[ QUOTE ]

individual moralities can be attributed to human tinkering..like religion...


[/ QUOTE ]

That illustrates my previous point.

[ QUOTE ]

but there is a lot of evidence to support the fact that the basic principles of what we call morality evolved over time


[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of evidence? If you mean that people once thought murder was wrong but now think it's right, or vice versa, you are mistaken. In the last 150 years, especially since Nietzsche, subjectivism has grown. Until then there was much concensus about general moral principles. See C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man.

[ QUOTE ]

I hope you'll forgive me if I consider it completely ridiculous to actually say that god is responsible for growing that limb.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it ridiculous? The Bible says that God "holds together" all things, that nothing happens apart from His will. Again, the same event can have more than one cause.

[ QUOTE ]

science CANNOT consider this anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

Modern science is generally defined to exclude anything but nature. That's fine, if it will stick to that. I don't claim you can put God in a test tube. Science should not claim that it's the only means of knowledge - it can't prove that scientifically.

[ QUOTE ]

but since these events never happen under any other circumstances than how they can naturally


[/ QUOTE ]

This basically asserts that science has explained everything. I tend to disagree.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
"First. If his goal is indeed to indicate that he answers prayers, then why do the "miraculous" healings happen at exactly the rate of natural spontaneous healings? Isn't God providing evidence against himself by doing such a thing? After all, Satanists appealing to Satan will be healed at the same rate - what is God trying to say, here?"

Bingo. And the best reason to disbelieve there is a personal god.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I were Anurag Dikshit and I wanted to cheat particular players out of thier money while they played at Party Poker, I could do it in a way that no statistical analysis of the outcome of the flop, turn, and river, would reveal my actions. In fact my desire not to be discovered cheating particular players would motivate me to act in that fashion.

If miraculous healings occur at the same rate as natural spontaneous healings, its a better reason to believe that a personal god does not want absolute proof of his existence than a reason to believe a personal god doesn't exist at all.

Stu

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of evidence? If you mean that people once thought murder was wrong but now think it's right, or vice versa, you are mistaken. In the last 150 years, especially since Nietzsche, subjectivism has grown. Until then there was much concensus about general moral principles. See C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man.


[/ QUOTE ]

1) I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about theories as to how morality originates...

lewis would say that god put it there..(but he has no evidence)

others would say that morality is a product of basic principles of survival..and evolution...(and there is a lot of evidence to support this..a lot by studying our closest ancestors..

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of evidence? If you mean that people once thought murder was wrong but now think it's right, or vice versa, you are mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human sacrifice was once quite common. Aztecs and stuff like that. Massive amounts of death.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Aztecs and stuff like that. Massive amounts of death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you've done a lot of research.

[David Sklansky]

"If I were Anurag Dikshit and I wanted to cheat particular players out of thier money while they played at Party Poker, I could do it in a way that no statistical analysis of the outcome of the flop, turn, and river, would reveal my actions. In fact my desire not to be discovered cheating particular players would motivate me to act in that fashion.

If miraculous healings occur at the same rate as natural spontaneous healings, its a better reason to believe that a personal god does not want absolute proof of his existence than a reason to believe a personal god doesn't exist at all."

To do that he would have to avoid healing people he wanted to heal or heal people he didn't want to. All to avoid showingproof that he didn't mind showing to ancients. In any case your thesis means, mathematically undebatebly, that God can't have what he desires, miracle wise, because of a sick need to avoid good proof of his existence. And you think that is more likely than the alternative that God doesn't perform miracles at all?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"If I were Anurag Dikshit and I wanted to cheat particular players out of thier money while they played at Party Poker, I could do it in a way that no statistical analysis of the outcome of the flop, turn, and river, would reveal my actions. In fact my desire not to be discovered cheating particular players would motivate me to act in that fashion.

If miraculous healings occur at the same rate as natural spontaneous healings, its a better reason to believe that a personal god does not want absolute proof of his existence than a reason to believe a personal god doesn't exist at all."

To do that he would have to avoid healing people he wanted to heal or heal people he didn't want to. All to avoid showingproof that he didn't mind showing to ancients. In any case your thesis means, mathematically undebatebly, that God can't have what he desires, miracle wise, because of a sick need to avoid good proof of his existence. And you think that is more likely than the alternative that God doesn't perform miracles at all?

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe not mathematically debatable but logically avoidable. Keeping the poker theme, god can use props.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Human sacrifice was once quite common.


[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't murder within the definitions of the society. You don't think they prohibited murder?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Human sacrifice was once quite common.


[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't murder within the definitions of the society. You don't think they prohibited murder?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Aztecs had class divisions, and a well-defined class structure. Standard nobility, peasant, slave classes, although travelling merchants had their own class, espionage was a tradecraft for some.

Their codices have never been quite completely interpreted, and the post-Conquest influences may have marred a true idea of their code of laws. But there is no doubt in this civilized system, the usual offences were met with the usual punishments.

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
You can dismiss and make light of it, but I thought it was an excellent question. It me made think and I'm already an atheist. It goes to show that no amount of reasoning or logic will ever make you question your beliefs. I'm sure you think that's a good thing, but I think it's sad to be so oblivious to the reality around you. Hey wait a minute....

Why is my hair all of a sudden standing straight on end?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice. You do realize that for maximum effect you can never post again. That would be awesome.

Wow, that sounds mean. I don't mean it in a mean way, lol.

[r3vbr]

PLEASE STOP WITH ALL THE RELIGION POSTS YOU FOOLS
RELIGION IS FOR IGNORANT PEOPLE
WHY NOT TALK ABOUT MORE CONSTRUCTIVE MATTERS?

[FortunaMaximus]

Want some beef jerky, r3vbr? It'll calm you down.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But there is no doubt in this civilized system, the usual offences were met with the usual punishments.


[/ QUOTE ]

HA!!! Thought so.

[FortunaMaximus]

It was an interesting civilization, NotReady. Well-structured, women weren't regarded as inferior creatures, but actually superior.

They just thought they had to appease an bloodthristy god in their own ways. Their astronomy and mathematics are still being deciphered centuries later.

In many ways, they were ahead. Very far ahead, actually. If Fermi was ever violated, the approaching civilization would have chosen the Aztecs at their peak.

Who knows. We have yet to dredge whole the mysteries of Earth. I wonder what's under all that Antarctican ice.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It was an interesting civilization, NotReady.


[/ QUOTE ]

My aunt was fascinated by the Mayans, even named her daughter Maya. I had a passing interest, still do I guess, just don't have the time for every diversion that comes along.

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder what's under all that Antarctican ice.


[/ QUOTE ]

Atlantis, of course.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It was an interesting civilization, NotReady.


[/ QUOTE ]

My aunt was fascinated by the Mayans, even named her daughter Maya. I had a passing interest, still do I guess, just don't have the time for every diversion that comes along.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know the feeling.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I wonder what's under all that Antarctican ice.


[/ QUOTE ]

Atlantis, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Past or future?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Past or future?


[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on whether they really have a Stargate.

[FortunaMaximus]

Heh. Perhaps, perhaps not. But you know, that's just an Einstein-Rosen bridge. All gussied up for the teevee.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But you know, that's just an Einstein-Rosen bridge. All gussied up for the teevee.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was a big fan of sf in my youth but never got into the technical side. I guess you mean something like hyperspace or wormholes, no doubt having to do with space curvature? I'm sure that displays my ignorance on the subject.

I think the Stargate series is only fair, but McGyver hooked me. Always liked that guy. Only seen a few of the Atlantis version, already tired of the Wraith.

[FortunaMaximus]

Yeah, it's a postulate for a wormhole, submitted to Princeton by Einstein and Rosen in '35.

Deals with the particle problem in General Relativity.

Never did bother with the series much unless it was 3 am and I had nothing better to do. The movie was pretty good though.

Science can be so pedantic and mindless at times. It's initutively logical to assume faster than light travel is possible. But to build the machines, we first need the tools and blueprints, yeah?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It's initutively logical to assume faster than light travel is possible


[/ QUOTE ]

This may seem odd coming from a Christian but I would love to see that happen. I don't really expect it though. Will just have to wait for heaven.

[FortunaMaximus]

A place where anything is possible, right?

Oh, heaven's all around us, I'm sure. The sooner an individual learns not to keep pulling at the threads, the easier it is to get used to that fact.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

A place where anything is possible, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not anything, but to quote 2010, "something wonderful is about to happen".

[FortunaMaximus]

"All worlds are yours, except Europa."

Oh, favorite book, favorite author, and it's not even close.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

"All worlds are yours, except Europa."


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing that's from the book? Sorry to say I was quoting the movie. I do intend to read the series someday, just haven't managed it yet. As proof of my good intentions I read the Foundation series for the first time only a few months ago.

I used to read novels and other literature with both hands, almost non-stop. I must have burned out about 20 years ago and read almost no fiction for about 18 years. The last couple of years I've had a bit of a resurgence but at a much slower pace. Even so, I still over did it a bit and am currently on a sabbatical, though I'm sure it will be much shorter. So I'll put Clarke on my get-to list. I still remember seeing 2001 in the theatre. Wow and double wow. The guy actually knows there's no sound in space. Wow.

Edit: AND he convinced them to film it that way. Very wow.

[FortunaMaximus]

There's no sound in my Universe either. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Well, 2010 was the first book I read cover to cover as a kid. So Clarke's always got a pretty high regard, for me.

Yeah, I find as I get older that I'm reading much less fiction and simply consuming and reinterpreting information. It's also fun to have a vast memory bank to draw on. In any event, I've gotten far more selective about my print reading choices.

He also designed the geosynchronous satelitte, so you can be certain his science is pretty rock-solid when he writes his novels.

Ah, but tomorrow's another day. See you 'round, eh.

[tame_deuces]

I've seen met amputees who has been living great lives, some vice versa. I don't know if god healed the ones luckier off in some way or if anyone did. Personally, I don't believe in god, but if I did I would be wondering fairly strongly why on earth you are assuming god heals anyone.

[kurto]

I was just curious people's general thoughts on this 'book?' I read most of it. I thought that guy was pretty repetitive and overly drawn out yet I was chuckling through most of it. I thought he made a pretty strong argument about how illogical God is.

On a side note- I was pretty amused at his audacious suggestion that the teacher was allowed to be killed by God for being a sinner. After all, he did quote (for literalists) that women aren't to teach man. I thought he did a good job of finding ridiculous scripture that isn't easily dismissed by Bible literalists.

I also enjoyed his argument about how if God has mapped out everyone's lives and written it out in his book, that abortion fit perfectly into God's plan and those people opposing abortion are opposing God's will. The same arguments amusingly made Hitler just another person acting out God's script for their life.

[Stu Pidasso]

"If miraculous healings occur at the same rate as natural spontaneous healings, its a better reason to believe that a personal god does not want absolute proof of his existence than a reason to believe a personal god doesn't exist at all."

To do that he would have to avoid healing people he wanted to heal or heal people he didn't want to. All to avoid showingproof that he didn't mind showing to ancients. In any case your thesis means, mathematically undebatebly, that God can't have what he desires, miracle wise, because of a sick need to avoid good proof of his existence. And you think that is more likely than the alternative that God doesn't perform miracles at all? "

This is only true if a personal God does not have knowledge of future events. However, if prior to creation, a personal God knows how many people will pray to him in such a manner that he will want to miraculously heal them he can set things up so he can do everything he wants to do and avoid doing anything he doesn't want to do.

It seems that you're also assuming that a personal God did in fact provide absolute proof to ancients that he exist and that a personal God has and will treat men equally through out the ages. Certain scriptures validate one assumption but contradict the other.

Stu