Why Doesn't God Heal Amputees?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I started reading the link. It is actually very thoughtful and illuminating. Maybe you should get off your imaginary high-horse Arakish and learn some humility from the theists, like AJ. You call him arrogant, suggesting he knows everything while you admit you don't know everything. Then continue to flaunt your multiple degrees as if that makes you something special, combining weak logic fluffed up with personal attacks. I feel with all of the education you have had and all of the topics that you (admittedly) have well researched, you still fall short of some of the theists here. Both in intellect, and human sympathy. just saying...
Page 4 sums it up pretty well.
"God’s primary aim is not to hide but rather to include all
people in God’s family as beloved children under God’s
fatherly guidance. A loving filial relationship with God is
God’s main goal for every human. This means that God
wants us to love, to treasure, God as our Father, not just
to believe that God exists (Deuteronomy 6:5; Mark
12:30; James 2:19). So production of mere reasonable
belief that God exists will not meet God’s higher aim for
us. For our own good, God is after something more
profound and more transforming than simple
reasonable belief about God. Mere reasonable belief is
no match for personal transformation toward God’s
loving character. "
Also, page 6 is interesting.
"Similarly, many people
today presume to know how a loving God should or must
intervene in our world, if God is to be loving. For example, many people suggest that an all-loving God would
have to keep the world free of evil. What, however,
determines how God should be revealed? What standard
of clarity must God’s self-revelation meet? A loving God
would not, and should not, be bound by superficial
human expectations. Human expectations must be
transformed, for the good of humans, toward the profoundly loving character of God. This disturbing and
humbling lesson is central to Hebraic theism. It reminds
us that our “wisdom” may not add up to God’s wisdom
(Isaiah 29:14; 1 Corinthians 1:19-20). Our expectations
may be shallow or even mistaken in comparison with
God’s loving character and intentions. "
This points out something important, especially regarding the 'Problem of Evil'. The idea that humans think a god is not all loving because he doesn't stop evil, merely makes the point that our minds are nothing in comparison to the all knowing god. God is all knowing, so only he knows what is good for us. It is arrogance that makes us think god needs to provide physical evidence for us to see and test. But obviously, because he doesn't and he is all knowing, he knows it would be worse for us in the long run. He hides, because it is better for us. I don't know why this is the case, but I'm not going to pretend I know more than an all knowing god.
That all sounds nice and flowery and warm and fuzzy.
Then you realize those words would work for any made up god concept.
I just made up a god. It is a homicidal maniac that loves to torture maim kill destroy and crush all hope. But it mostly hides itself which is why there is no "real" evidence of it.
Why? Because of what you just wrote above, plus everything else in that link.
When someone constructs an argument that is unfalsifiable, it is a worthless argument, because it could be used for anything.
I am your god, don't believe me? Well I hide the proof I am your god, for the reasons stated in that link. Now give me 30% of all your earnings and worldly possessions.
Should I expect your check in the mail or do you call BS?
If you call BS then why, you just stated the reasons god remains hidden are solid reasons.
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
The article isn’t an argument for the existence of God, but rather an explanation as to why He may choose to remain hidden.
When you can believe such absurdities, you can believe anything.
And commit the most heinous of atrocities...
1) Do you believe that lying is acceptable?
2) Are you an atheist?
3) Are you telling the truth?
edit: added quote
hahah yes, I am still an atheist. I am playing devils advocate on a few comments though, to honestly get to the truth. I don't like how some of the comments have been addressed, or the attitudes in a lot of them.
1) No, unless it is a white lie.
It is odd that you make remarks such as "I don't know why this is the case, but I'm not going to pretend I know more than an all knowing god." unless you believe them to be true. That goes above and beyond playing God's Advocate.
The biblical God character is about as loving as an eyebrow mite is. A louse on a camel's butt would give you more love.
Arakish, you seem to be a bit closed minded.
Not closed-minded. Just heard it all for over 45+ years. The arguments used today are same ones that have been used for what? 1500+ years. Nothing new.
“Not closed-minded. Just heard it all”, how is it possible that you have heard it all? Do you possess all possible knowledge and have nothing left to learn?
Because I have been hearing the same horse hoowhee for more years than you have been alive.
When it comes to Christianity, yes, I do have all the knowledge needed and there is nothing left to learn about Christianity.
"Here’s a long read on why God isn’t more obvious, or chooses to remain hidden."
For a much shorter read that doesn't use assumptions, logical fallacies, hand waving, and facile rationalisations, ...
We could stick with the rather obvious fact that humans create fictional deities.
Ask yourself, would it be fair to say that fictional things can only appear to be "hidden", so to speak?
I've never seen any evidence for Appollo, does this mean its a real deity that has reasons not to make its existence obvious?
Oh look you and the book you linked have either evidenced all deities, or you've created a special pleading fallacy.
Its the second one in case you're not sure.
Now, why is it immoral in your opinion to torture children.
Is it an objectively moral fact? Or Iis it meaningless opinion as you keep claiming is the only viable alternative?
If so why does your deity torture children, or allow them to be tortured?
This find within The Bible doesn't matter at all. Not one bit.
The real crux of the "Why doesn't God heal amputees?" question is not to ask why God does not fix missing limbs specifically. It is to point out the obvious - which is that God does not heal maladies that present themselves visually and are a sort of "game over" type of wound - as in, there is no way for the body to heal itself. Why does God never heal cleft palates? Why does God not fix conjoined twins? There are plenty of other permanent maladies that this is a simplistic, easy-to-understand sub for.
Besides this, the question is asked in modern times, and it targets modern times. It doesn't even matter if Jesus really existed and really did heal people who were lame/amputated/blind. The question is posed in modern times, when we still have people crediting God with cancer that goes into remission, or someone's back getting better. Any healing of an illness or issue that doesn't present itself visually/permanently can be credited to God... but then you point at someone missing a limb and say "Why are these guys never healed by God?" It is to get people to think, and realize that their attribution of healing to God is predicated on the malady (or at least the mechanisms behind the malady) being entirely invisible to the eye... that they rely on that to even be able to claim that God had a hand in the healing, and to get them to ask themselves why that is.
Re: OP "Why doesn't God heal amputees?"
Because he is too damn busy trying to juggle all the billions of prayers from all the worldwide sports teams and their devoted fans who are CONSTANTLY asking Him to let their favorite team win. And since it is currently Super Bowl time, I imagine God is putting in overtime having to deal with all the different bookies on top of all the regular avalanche of prayer-flow. How the hell is He suppose to have time to restore a bunch of missing limbs???
Yeah! Tell 'em. And he better answer my prayer for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to win it all!
God makes time. Witness His glory
@Rat Spit Re: "God makes time. Witness His glory"
Bwaaaa-haaaaa-haaaa.... Thanks, Ratty! That was awesome! I needed a good laugh today.... *thumbs up*.....
@ Rat spit
Should help the poor little tackers sex life anyways....
If god exists, is all powerful, and chooses to remain hidden: then only the credulous will believe god exists. Or in other words: there would be no hope in ever convincing anyone who has a skeptical bone in their body.
That isn't an argument, that is the end of argument.
Nyar, I would add that if he thinks his god is choosing to remain hidden, then I sure hope he doesn’t also think that god would damn someone for eternity for not finding him/her. Seems to me that would be a shitty thing for a god to do.
Precisely correct, there would be no discernible difference between a deity that chose to remain hidden, and one that doesn't exist.
The claim is clearly nonsense when theists also claim it appears to some, but not others? It appears its "good reasons" to remain hidden are not universal. The sceptical among us can't help but notice the claims for these appearance diminish in direct proportion to the level of education that exists in the general population, and the amount of technology that exists to reliably record such events.
Arakish, you posted:
“Not closed-minded. Just heard it all”, how is it possible that you have heard it all?”
Because I have been hearing the same horse hoowhee for more years than you have been alive.
“Do you possess all possible knowledge and have nothing left to learn?”
“When it comes to Christianity, yes, I do have all the knowledge needed and there is nothing left to learn about Christianity.”
You seem to be making a presumption about how old I am without knowing my age? Also, this is an appeal to authority. Believing there is nothing left to learn on a subject is close to the definition of being closed minded. Which it seems you are sir.
AJ777: "You seem to be making a presumption about how old I am without knowing my age? Also, this is an appeal to authority. Believing there is nothing left to learn on a subject is close to the definition of being closed minded. Which it seems you are sir."
By going on only your posts, you do not seem to be old enough to have done much research into the veracity of your beliefs system. About presumption about your age, your posts and what you say in those posts is all I have to go on. As said, you do not seem old enough to know the difference between your own indoctrination into their confirmation bias they have brainwashed you with and the actual ability to think for yourself. I was researching into the veracity of the bible beginning in the early 1970s. When we were you born?
Mine is not an appeal to authority. Mine is an appeal to the research I have done. Research that has proven the bible false. As for anything being left to learn about Christianity, you have done nothing to provide anything new to learn. Still not closed-mindedness. Instead, everything you have posted has already been said many numerous times in the 50+ years I have been alive.
If there is anything new to learn, why is it you have provided NOTHING new? Why have you done nothing more than repeat what others have been saying since before I was even born? Why is it you have done nothing more than plagiarize the work of others? Why is it you have only your appeal to authority to rely on?
And you have it correct. I only "seem" closed-minded because you cannot offer anything new. It is a very difficult to be open-minded when you have nothing new to offer. Every link you have offered, I have already heard decades ago. It might be helpful if you were to some actual research into any link you offer to ensure it has not already been said decades earlier.
Until you can offer something that actually has veracity and has not been plagiarized, your presupposed assumptions shall be summarily dismissed after The Ten Razors have been applied.
The Ten Razors:
OBJECTIVE HARD EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat.
"slap , slap , slap "BOOM" stupid boy..."
Love your work mate.
“Mine is not an appeal to authority. Mine is an appeal to the research I have done. Research that has proven the bible false.”
You’re making an appeal to the authority of your own research and the amount of time you’ve spent doing the research, instead of providing the proof of your claim that you’ve proven the Bible wrong. In your worldview how can the Bible be wrong if truth and morality are subjective anyway. Your illogic is showing.
The bible makes demonstrably erroneous claims, contradicted by objective scientific facts. So there's no appeal to authority fallacy in pointing this out.