"Why won't God heal amputees?"

[stu]

Quote from jefferis:

Thou hast laid a snare to trap the hare, but will have none of it.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

tell me where is the trap, I don't see it?

Your advice is God cannot be dis-proved so approach the problem from an empirical standpoint. Your advice is , agnosticism is a more reasoned approach.
That is what you said, please correct if I am wrong.

So why should Fairies not be approached from the same empirical standpoint? What is it that causes you to sense a trap when it is your own advice ?
Surely from that empirical standpoint you advise, there is no reason why the same reasoned approach should not be reached?

Can you elucidate a little further?

 

[jefferis]

Quote from stu:


Can you elucidate a little further?

It is called the "fallacy of many questions."
It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved — i.e., a premise is included which is at least as dubious as the proposed conclusion. For example, the statement that walking in the woods alone at night is unwise because fairies are likely to bewitch unsuspecting individuals, presupposes that fairies exist — a dubious proposition.
This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

My point is that by ignoring the major proposition and alluding to a dubious minor, you are ignoring the first cause to try to make it seem a ridiculous argument by forcing a decision about derivatives. The existence of God has been a major premise throughout the world and philosophy. Fairies are a localized and regional sub-premise.
Whether or not fairies exist is irrelevant because it creates the logical fallacy of the illicit minor and the converse fallacy of accidents. If Fairies exist, it would not prove or disprove the existence of God. If they don't exist, it would be the same result.

My initial argument relates to the entire metaphysical structure of the universe, and is a major premise. If God, then can we either prove or disprove his existence by material, empirical means. Since, if God, God is not subject to matter but the creator of matter, by what means can you measure that which is infinite and subject it to a finite test?

Most proofs against God are an exercise of hubris. They commit the fallacy of faulty generalization and specifically, the biased sample: "I have not experienced or seen God. He makes no sense to me: Therefore, I conclude, God does not exist."

The "I" is the problem in the sample. From finite experience, a short life span, and limited knowledge of things beyond even our own planet, and in many cases, our own country or state, a person makes a sweeping generalization about the structure of the entire universe: that God cannot or does not exist. The statistical sampling and the selectivity of the data is too small to be of any value empirically.

A corollary of this approach is also hubristic: If there is a God, I demand that He prove himself to me and show me miracles.

If someone demanded I show up in his office tomorrow to prove I existed, I am not likely to show up on command. I find it completely unnecessary to prove I exist; nor would I want to submit to someone's arrogant approach to my person. On the other hand, if someone asked for my help because they were truly in need, I am much more likely to come willingly.

 

[jefferis]

Quote from lkh:

I It happened to me. I was once like you. I was a bible thumping baptist until i set about trying to prove a global flood happened. That led me here because a questioning mind is the enemy of faith.

I am just curious. You were a bible thumper. Did you ever have a 'born again' experience, which is the main thrust of most Baptists? I am wondering why you are putting so much effort and emotion into this thing, for what does it matter? If there is no God, "let the blind lead the blind." What's the big deal of people believe, and why is it so important that you have to prove yourself right. Just glancing over the thread as a late comer, I see many theorems. So it is obviously something important to you.

I, on the other hand, did not come from a religious household. I was a committed atheist, bound to the logic of atheism's consistency, until I discovered that Life is larger than logic, just as I discovered that Love is larger than reason. Reason can tell you how you ought to act, but only love can make you want to act that way. I've been down all the rabbit trails of why God cannot exist, couldn't exist, should do something if he exists, but in the end, I found that in spite of all my reason and logic, I still was not wise enough to be able to run the universe according to my plan, or to teach God a thing or two. If I were God, I might do it differently, but then who knows how many would fry in the process BTW, Loved Bruce Almighty. A good cautionary tale.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

You gave your interpretation of a definition of free will..ie your definition. When scrutinized it fell apart.

What a joke you changed the meaning of "free will" be analysing the two words seperately.

I suppose free fall does not mean free falling because the force of a gravity may be operating on someone diving out of a plane or because he had to pay for the fuel to make the plane fly.

 

[lkh]

Quote from jefferis:

I am just curious. You were a bible thumper. Did you ever have a 'born again' experience, which is the main thrust of most Baptists? I am wondering why you are putting so much effort and emotion into this thing, for what does it matter? If there is no God, "let the blind lead the blind." What's the big deal of people believe, and why is it so important that you have to prove yourself right. Just glancing over the thread as a late comer, I see many theorems. So it is obviously something important to you.

Yep. Born again, baptized, the whole works. Maybe God sent me to set the record straight.
If you believe and keep it to yourself i have no problem but that isn't good enough for this younger generation of bible thumpers.They will not stop until religion is institutionalized in america. That makes people like me decide to challenge them and expose religion for the superstition it is.

 

[I am...]

Quote from jefferis:

Even if God were to appear to you in the flesh, it would be no guarantee that you would believe.

Just as the Prodigal Son once stood face to face with his father, so too has everyone in this thread has stood with the Father. Thus, there was ample proof of existence. What then led to this place in which the reality of the Father is questioned? Thought processes led here. "What if" scenarios, ideas about separation, and the logic that follows false premises. To deny the Father, the Son must deny himself. Thus it comes that many here do not know who they are or where they came from. At this point it is a process of remembering, not proving, for the Son knows the Father from eternity. It is about an undoing of thought processes that led down multiple rabbit trails leading nowhere. Everyone in this thread still stands with the Father. It is merely a processes of salvaging a wandering mind. Should the Father then rush into the Son's dreams to prove it is just a dream? Instead, He gives the Holy Spirit to the mind of the dreamer, to gently awaken him from his long sleep. The Son KNOWS. Thus, to seem to exist in dimensions of perception and uncertainty, he must have denied knowledge, and still does, from the perspective within "time". The denial of knowledge is evidenced at any moment in choices to listen to the original logic that led here, or the Holy Spirit, Who gives the perspectives leading back to knowledge.

Thus, certain types of proof are unforthcoming. For example, the Father in a body is impossible, for the body is not real and does not exist. The body is wholly a projection of a mind. In this case it is a projection of that part of the Son's mind that is sleeping and wandering and thinking upside down. The "universe" itself is wholly a projection of the Son's mind. In short, reality cannot be made part of an illusion, whereas, illusion can be brought to reality, where it may be transformed by truth.

When asked if he was enlightened, the Buddha replied, "I am awake". Thus, when you listen to the Teacher within, you will gently awaken from this dream of suffering into constant joy and happiness, until you unite completely again with the Father.

Blessings,

Jesus

 

[jefferis]

Quote from lkh:

Yep. Born again, baptized, the whole works. Maybe God sent me to set the record straight.
If you believe and keep it to yourself i have no problem That makes people like me decide to challenge them and expose religion for the superstition it is.

You mean only people who do not believe have the right to speak and occupy the public square? Freedom of speech, religion, and expression is okay only so long as everyone agrees with you?

And your faith was shipwrecked on the shoals of Fundamentalism most likely? False faith in a literalistic approach has sundered many. Part of the problem of the culture of Enlightenment Rationalism is that we approach historical cultures as if they were products of our own age.

 

[stu]

Quote from jefferis:

It is called the "fallacy of many questions."
It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved — i.e., a premise is included which is at least as dubious as the proposed conclusion. For example, the statement that walking in the woods alone at night is unwise because fairies are likely to bewitch unsuspecting individuals, presupposes that fairies exist — a dubious proposition.
This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

Ok, you are saying my question was a loaded one. Then let me re phrase it so there is no ambiguity.

Why should not everything be approached from the same empirical standpoint. Your advice is "God cannot be dis-proved so approach the problem from an empirical standpoint". Are you agnostic about Allah for instance? He is God is He not. Are you agnostic about Allah and Vishnu as per the advice you give.

Quote from jefferis:

My point is that by ignoring the major proposition and alluding to a dubious minor, you are ignoring the first cause to try to make it seem a ridiculous argument by forcing a decision about derivatives. The existence of God has been a major premise throughout the world and philosophy. Fairies are a localized and regional sub-premise.
Whether or not fairies exist is irrelevant because it creates the logical fallacy of the illicit minor and the converse fallacy of accidents. If Fairies exist, it would not prove or disprove the existence of God. If they don't exist, it would be the same result.

Fairies are a sub premise and illicit minor? How is that? As it is said Fairies have greater powers How are they derivative?
The Fairies I mentioned are not localized , I explicitly described them as having greater attributes than God is described as having . They are not a logical fallacy when they are by any other name... Gods.

Also I didn't ask, nor did my question suggest, their existence should prove or disprove God. I was asking about the valid use of your own advice.

Quote from jefferis:

My initial argument relates to the entire metaphysical structure of the universe, and is a major premise. If God, then can we either prove or disprove his existence by material, empirical means. Since, if God, God is not subject to matter but the creator of matter, by what means can you measure that which is infinite and subject it to a finite test?

Then my question is valid. Why should not everything be approached from the same empirical standpoint. Including Gods different only by name.

Quote from jefferis:

Most proofs against God are an exercise of hubris. They commit the fallacy of faulty generalization and specifically, the biased sample: "I have not experienced or seen God. He makes no sense to me: Therefore, I conclude, God does not exist."

Then wouldn't you be quilty of the that "crime" by dismissing Fairies (anything) in the same way you describe?

Quote from jefferis:

The "I" is the problem in the sample. From finite experience, a short life span, and limited knowledge of things beyond even our own planet, and in many cases, our own country or state, a person makes a sweeping generalization about the structure of the entire universe: that God cannot or does not exist. The statistical sampling and the selectivity of the data is too small to be of any value empirically.

Do you mean in the same way as a sweeping generalization, "Fairies do not or cannot exist".

Quote from jefferis:

A corollary of this approach is also hubristic: If there is a God, I demand that He prove himself to me and show me miracles.

So too for say or Allah, Fairie's or Vishnu ? If not why not?

Quote from jefferis:

If someone demanded I show up in his office tomorrow to prove I existed, I am not likely to show up on command. I find it completely unnecessary to prove I exist; nor would I want to submit to someone's arrogant approach to my person. On the other hand, if someone asked for my help because they were truly in need, I am much more likely to come willingly.

In other words, your love has its bounds.


Do you apply your own advice by "approaching the problem from an empirical standpoint". As you advise, you cannot devise a test to test your theorem for Allah, Vishnu, Thor,Fairies, God. Are you not by your own advice therefore agnostic?

 

[lkh]

Quote from jefferis:

You mean only people who do not believe have the right to speak and occupy the public square? Freedom of speech, religion, and expression is okay only so long as everyone agrees with you?

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to force your beliefs on others. Things like trying to force prayer in schools and force creationism taught in schools is what i am talking about.
I cant see what you are complaining about. You already have the government start every day with a prayer.

 

[lkh]

Quote from jefferis:

You mean only people who do not believe have the right to speak and occupy the public square? Freedom of speech, religion, and expression is okay only so long as everyone agrees with you?

And your faith was shipwrecked on the shoals of Fundamentalism most likely? False faith in a literalistic approach has sundered many. Part of the problem of the culture of Enlightenment Rationalism is that we approach historical cultures as if they were products of our own age.

Truth and evidence wrecked my faith. The very concept of faith is an insult to human intelligence. If you take something on faith, you are in effect saying, "I don't need evidence, facts, or logic. Evidence is worthless, facts are for ninnies, logic is nonsense. I'll believe whatever I want even if reality overwhelmingly shows that it's just not true."