"Why won't God heal amputees?"

Quote from archimedes:

.

The bible itself, in fact, is one of the most opaque and confusing books ever written. There are countless doctrinal issues that could have been cleared up with a few direct sentences, a paragraph or two of non-oblique scripture, but instead rage on today. And yet 1 Corinthians says "God is not the author of confusion."

So if the bible says God is not the author of confusion, and yet the bible is simultaneously authored by God and one of the most confusing books ever written, where does that leave us? One is reminded of the "All Cretins are liars" paradox posed by Epimenides (who was himself from Crete you see).


=================
Arch;

Most of Bible[except Gospel of John] is written to Gods people;
think you should understand all of my love letters to a loved one?????????????????????????? .

I think you wouldnt, & shouldnt.

Epimenides WHO????????????????;
Titus was writtrn to by Paul ,Titus chapter1
Would that be fair to conclude you are not real because that sentence of yours is ''opaque and confusong''??????????????


And was there some reson you left off the rest;
Cretians are always liars, slow bellies, evil beasts.


:cool:
 
Quote from murray t turtle:

=================
Arch;

Most of Bible[except Gospel of John] is written to Gods people;
think you should understand all of my love letters to a loved one?????????????????????????? .

I think you wouldnt, & shouldnt.


The bible is actully more confusing to believers than nonbelievers.

Think about it.

And by the way, when you manage to clear away the thicket of maddeningly complex doctrinal issues that every denomination and sect still struggle with to this day, let me know.
 
Supernatural beings' existence or inexistence can neither be proven nor disproven by science, for supernaturality, by definition, lies beyond the realm of science.
Supernaturality can not be a "scientific object", if you will. The atheist and the believer can not rest on science to justify their faith.
So you're losing your time...


Quote from lkh:

Is God real, or is he imaginary?
Is God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions in America today, because this question lies at the heart of the American culture wars.

If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands. We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put "in God we trust" on the money, pray in our schools and eliminate the theory of evolution from every curriculum. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word.

On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. We should eliminate God from our society because God is meaningless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition causes significant problems for all of us.

But how can we decide, conclusively, whether God is real or imaginary? Since we are intelligent human beings living in the 21st century, we should take the time to look at some data. That is what we are doing when we ask, "Why won't God heal amputees?"

When we pray to God to restore an amputated limb, there is only one way for the limb to regenerate: God must exist and God must answer prayers. There is zero ambiguity in this situation. What we find is that whenever we create an unambiguous situation like this and look at the results of prayer, prayer never works. God never "answers prayers" if there is no possibility of coincidence.

Isn't that interesting? We will approach this fascinating relationship between prayer and coincidence from several different angles in this book.
Ambiguity

The fact that God ignores all unambiguous prayers meshes with another fact. If we analyze God's responses to prayers using statistical tools, we find that there is never any statistical evidence for prayer. For example, this article points out:

One of the most scientifically rigorous studies yet, published earlier this month, found that the prayers of a distant congregation did not reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments. [ref]
It also says:
A review of 17 past studies of ''distant healing," published in 2003 by a British researcher, found no significant effect for prayer or other healing methods.
No valid scientific study has ever found any evidence that prayer works. You can pick any disease you like -- cancer, diabetes, heart diease, etc. Prayer has zero effect in every statistical study. See this page for details.
Cancer

You can see the same effect in the following prayer. Let's assume that you are a true believer and you do believe that God cures cancer. What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:

Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen.
This is a valid experiment. We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways. This should be an easy prayer for an omnipotent, all-loving God to answer.
This prayer is unambiguous too. If this prayer is going to get answered tonight, God must exist and God must answer prayers. As soon as we remove the ambiguity like this, we see the true nature of "God." There is no way that a coincidence can answer this prayer, and, sure enough, the prayer goes unanswered.

Meaning

If you look at the data rationally, you can see exactly what is happening here:

When we pray to God about any unambigous situation, God never answers the prayer.

When we analyse any ambiguous prayer using statistical tools, we find zero effect from prayer.
In other words, the data indicates that every "answered prayer" truly is a coincidence, nothing more. "God" doesn't "answer prayers" at all. The whole idea that "God answers prayers" appears to be an illusion created by human imagination.
Christians can create dozens of excuses and rationalizations for all of this evidence . For example, Christians will go to great lengths trying to explain why God ignores every prayer to regenerate lost limbs. But have you ever considered what the relationship between prayer and coincidence actually means? What if, instead of rationalizing, we speak honestly about the delusion of religion? The purpose of this Web site is to start this conversation in an open, friendly, easy-to-understand way, so that we can make our world a much better place.

Would you like to learn more? If you are an intelligent human being, and if you want to understand the true nature of "God", you owe it to yourself to ask, "Why won't God heal amputees?"
(next)
 
Perhaps God doesn't heal amputees because the act of amputation is the exercise of man's free will to amputate. Had the victim perhaps used his free will to pray hard enough the limb would have been healed and amputation would have not been necessary.
 
Quote from Ogeima:

Supernatural beings' existence or inexistence can neither be proven nor disproven by science, for supernaturality, by definition, lies beyond the realm of science.
Supernaturality can not be a "scientific object", if you will. The atheist and the believer can not rest on science to justify their faith.
So you're losing your time...
It's nothing to do with being proven or science. There simply cannot be a supernatural anything which exists.
 
Quote from claywilk:

Perhaps God doesn't heal amputees because the act of amputation is the exercise of man's free will to amputate. Had the victim perhaps used his free will to pray hard enough the limb would have been healed and amputation would have not been necessary.
I don't think you are describing free will. The ability to make a decision which holds consequences you cannot be free to decide over, is not free will.
 
Quote from stu:There simply cannot be a supernatural anything which exists.
This statement can not be proven nor disproven, so if it is to backed up it will be with something else than science.

Can it make sense to use in one sentence "supernatural" and "(not) to exist"?
maybe we re just hitting the limits of language here...
 
Quote from Ogeima:

This statement can not be proven nor disproven, so if it is to backed up it will be with something else than science.

Can it make sense to use in one sentence "supernatural" and "(not) to exist"?
maybe we re just hitting the limits of language here...
Perhaps it is to do with language, more specifically meaning and definition. For there is nothing in existence which can be supernatural. Should something exist, then it is not supernatural. QED.
 
Quote from stu:
Perhaps it is to do with language, more specifically meaning and definition.
We agree on that.

Quote from stu:
For there is nothing in existence which can be supernatural. Should something exist, then it is not supernatural. QED.
You're free to define "existence" and "supernatural" as contradictory terms. But you can't back it up. All you can do is share this usage with other people.
Indeed, this holds true also of my definition of "existence" and "supernatural" as non contradictory terms.

When I refered to "the limit of language", that's also what I meant, these "language games".


note: My mother tongue is obviously not English - it's French. But to the best of my knowledge, "supernatural" and "existence" are used in the same wayS in English and French, so our disagreement isn't due to a...language issue!!

For reference, 2 excerpts from the Merriam-Webster:

1.
existence
2 entries found for existence.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: ex·is·tence
Pronunciation: ig-'zis-t&n(t)s
Function: noun
1 a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance b : reality as presented in experience c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being <all the fair existences of heaven -- John Keats> d : sentient or living being : LIFE
2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds> b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect
3 : actual or present occurrence <existence of a state of war>

2.
supernatural
One entry found for supernatural.
Main Entry: su·per·nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
 
I do not say existence and supernatural are contrary terms or that they are not. I simply say when something exists it is not supernatural.

I also state quite separately, there can actually be nothing supernatural. Therefore when being specific, a term is not contrary or non-contrary to supernatural, as I say there can be nothing supernatural to begin with.

Two separate but clear statements and in my view, one proves the other.

I do not agree it is a language problem, but more to do with language's definitions and meanings. You will indeed have to play word games in order to attach indefinable meanings and nuances to those two words. This is what I suspect is the case. Even though you reference dictionary definitions for them, to my mind the terminology used already appears to have attached assumptions, which cannot work within the very definitions themselves.
Supernatural is at best a flowery aphorism only for things fanciful.
 
Back
Top