• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The answer to why God doesnt heal Amputees

icdchris

Member
A baby born with a congenital disease got it as an exercise in its free will?!

No, a baby born with a congenital disease got it as a result of probability but the point is this. If the "soul" of this baby lives (and has lived) hundreds of millions of years, it will make little difference that it lived a terrible life in this ONE case. It will be an experience that will make it more in the future, it will know the experiences it feels but again, with the fullness of time, it will be put into perspective.

Many of you are missing the point here and its my fault. The point is we are not here as a one shot experience and there is no God that Judges us for all eternity based on a very short period of time. We are here because we (our spirits) wanted to experience Earth and to collect experience. We don't get to choose where we are born because it doesn't matter. If you are a child of a Billionaire or a poor family, you are still getting experience that will make you MORE.

Think about the long life that baby will experience in the fullness of time, billions and billions of years and then tell me it will make a big difference to it in a hundred million years.

Lastly, I don't remember ever mentioning "Free will" in anything. That is another point.
 

Wandered Off

Sporadic Driveby Member
It will be an experience that will make it more in the future, it will know the experiences it feels but again, with the fullness of time, it will be put into perspective.
There is little evidence that most people have any memory of a prior incarnation. If we come here with no prior memory, where is the growth from having to start over every time? If we had lifetimes of perspective, wouldn't at least most of us be much wiser?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
We are here because we (our spirits) wanted to experience Earth and to collect experience.
I did?
I cannot help but wonder what your excuse is for the reason i do not remember ever wanting to experience Earth.

Think about the long life that baby will experience in the fullness of time, billions and billions of years and then tell me it will make a big difference to it in a hundred million years.
120 years max if they are lucky.
the second part makes no sense.
Even if I were to accept that the 'soul' lives beyond the body and never dies, your whole point makes no sense.
If one does not remember past experiences from 'life' to the next, what is point?

And how exactly does God play a role in this?
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
A baby born with a congenital disease got it as an exercise in its free will?!

No, a baby born with a congenital disease got it as a result of probability but the point is this. If the "soul" of this baby lives (and has lived) hundreds of millions of years, it will make little difference that it lived a terrible life in this ONE case. It will be an experience that will make it more in the future, it will know the experiences it feels but again, with the fullness of time, it will be put into perspective.
And if it doesn't, then it does. Do you have some evidence that the baby has a soul that lives for hundreds of millions of years?

Many of you are missing the point here and its my fault. The point is we are not here as a one shot experience and there is no God that Judges us for all eternity based on a very short period of time. We are here because we (our spirits) wanted to experience Earth and to collect experience. We don't get to choose where we are born because it doesn't matter. If you are a child of a Billionaire or a poor family, you are still getting experience that will make you MORE.
The point is that you don't know any more than I do whether this is the case. Since you don't, how about if you don't go around killing any babies, just in case you're wrong.

This is a good example of how the atheist belief that we only get one life is more conducive to compassion and morality than some theist beliefs that we get several lives or an additional eternal life.

It's very confusing if you don't use the quote function. Are you interested in learning, or don't you care?

Didn't you say that suffering was a result of having free will?
 

icdchris

Member
It is extremely challenging at attempting to discern your meaning, many of your words and sentences are so convulted, your intent is difficult to interpret even with context. But I guess it is safe to assume the "god" you refer to isn't the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh. (Though it is accepted literary canon that Yahweh, God of Abraham, of the Old Testament, is God the Creator, Father of Jesus)

It is only accepted literary canon that Yahweh is the Creator to the three monotheistic religions of today. Buddhist, Hindus, Janinst and all others hold a different view.


Often times, knowing only part of the picture is worse than knowing nothing at all. Hitler misappropriated various aspects of Nietzche's philosophical thought as a justification for genocide. Or to use your analogy, knowing only part of how an engine works, and not how it interacts with all the other parts, is worse than not knowing anything at all. Knowledge of one part leads to ASSUMPTIONS about its interactions with other components and by extension, ASSUMPTIONS about other parts as well. This leads to misinformation (which is worse than lack of information).

In Logic read what a Cogent Arugument is.



This paragraph is especially unclear (subject theory of truth the truth of the matter is not relative to this?), but aside from that, the most important, constant aspect of "truth" is that it is consistent with itself, that its logic doesn't collapse upon itself. However, your logic (or rather the logic of "god") has been highly irratic, shifting your framework many many times. But now onto the so-called "logic" of "God."

WHAT?


This isn't even an answer, let alone an answer with logic. This is sophistry, misdirection, not addressing the paradox of omnipotence at all, merely making a metaphorical all is one, one is all reference. Also realize utilizing this "logic," a paradox, an inconsistency, occurs as, to paraphrase your god, "you are not outside of the universe to converse with" which evidently, you are doing (albeit, in a dream, but it doesn't make my arguement any less valid, as your dreams are part of the universe). Also, this directly refutes a prior statement of yours, saying that "God," can tweak the universe, suggesting that he has external control, which is highly inconsistent with the "answer" he gave you. Furthermore, it begs the question, how did he come into existence? Did he magically create himself? (And no, Cogito Ergo Sum doesn't work, as the logic of the statement is circular)

A Yoga master can do many things with their body yet they do not live "outside" their body ( and to you, outside the Universe LOL) God came into exsistence with the Big Bang.

Again, not a straight answer, more misdirection, more sophistry. The implied answer is however, there is a set, constant, amount of "soul" or "spirit" (again begging the question, where does it all come from?) which indicates, that all our "souls/spirits" have been around since the beginning of time, experiencing everything. However, why is there no recollection of these past experiences? If our "souls" are reset whenever we enter a new vessel, mooting your framework of experience. The framework you present (which is derived from your "experience" with God) is incompatible with this "God."

Our Spirits "reset" themselves to each situation. If I were to know all the past lives while I was here it would interfere with the experience of here. For want of a better analogy, all my memories are placed in safekeeping while I experience new ones here. Sometimes some people so have past life memories and as any Physicist will tell you, reaching an absolute is impossible so sometimes there is a small residue to the spirit of past memories. ( no I don't have any)


Cute, apparantly spirits (and souls?) have mass/energy and are affected by the laws of physics (and if so, why haven't spirit or soul particles or even traces of them been discovered yet? Plus if these spirits and souls are timeless and infinite, why does the amount of time to travel matter?) Again, this paragraph is highly unclear (travel as you know it doesn't not happen, what?) but this implies that all of us are in fact "part of God," which isn't really possible as the God you see is externalized (otherwise, how is interaction possible?).

The fact is we are still discovering the laws of physics. An electron only has mass by virtue of its speed. We know that the overwhelming vast amount of mass and energy in the Universe is still UNEXPLAINED. Is our "soul" a part of Dark Matter or Dark Energy? I don't know and God didn't tell me. If you want a better analogy of God in this contexts study Hinduism.



Apparantly, evil doesn't exist, but it does? This answer given is just so bad it actually physically (and spiritually) hurts, as it directly contradicts itself. Evil doesn't exist, but a moral judgement that people's experiences can be bad does (again with the shifting framework), Good and Evil/Bad can exist in the Short-run, but don't in the long? Clearly, this logic fails miserably. The fact that the moral judgement of "bad" was passed on the experience by "God," moots the framework you presents.

Evil does not exists. I never said it did. Bad and Evil or two different words and have two different meanings. People assign values, not God. For me to better respond I need to know what your meaning of Evil is



The implication here is that religions all around twisted this message to support their own political agenda (which I agree with), but this answer presupposes his existence, and really, can't be used as an ontological proof of God.

Why not? If there is a systemic similarity of thought and message with NO apparent connection one can use it ontologically. One can also argue your way but again, I offer arguments, you try to state facts.




All your arguments presuppose the existence of the "spirit" or the "soul" as something external and outside of the body (and thereby, the universe), which again you yourself say its not. Apparant contradictions, and huge leaps of logic exist within your reasoning and "framework." Also, what happens if you're wrong? That your conversations with "God" turn out to be your brain's method of rationalizing and dealing with the fear of the unknown (what happens post-mortum, specifically), that our spirit and souls aren't timeless and universal, that in fact, the existential view of life is correct (or, at the very least, more accurate), that after death its merely just, as Porky pig put it best, "That's all Folks!"

*** are you thinking? "outside the Body and thereby the Universe? LOL my house is outside my body so does that mean its also outside the Universe? ****, your arguments up to here had some very good points but this was either you not thinking or you on crack LOL

What happens if I am wrong? I die. I will not use the argument of you trying to explain though then. Think about this. If I am right and you are wrong, you will live forever and experience things to the fullness of time. If I am wrong and you are right, we will in a depressing world where we were only accidents of nature and nothing we do will mean anything.


Yes, they helped alleviate my boredom, and realize, that I'm not trying to attack or insult you personally, I merely mean to emphasize lapses of logic to promote critical thinking and fight ignorance.

The fact that you state you are not attacking me is not an indication that you are not attacking me. If you truly didn't wish to insult me, then you would have left out the insulting remarks and stuck to the premises and conclusions. I don't take anything personal as i have no vested interest in you or your welfare. I know you and I will travel the same path, I just do so in THIS life with some satisfaction.

P.S. please try making your next posts more coherent, as I am limited by the medium of your words and cannot tell exactly what your thoughts are, and may be misrepresenting them.

I agree, this make the next posts about one idea at a time then
 

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
I did?
I cannot help but wonder what your excuse is for the reason i do not remember ever wanting to experience Earth.


120 years max if they are lucky.
the second part makes no sense.
Even if I were to accept that the 'soul' lives beyond the body and never dies, your whole point makes no sense.
If one does not remember past experiences from 'life' to the next, what is point?

And how exactly does God play a role in this?

Not only do I not ever remember wanting to experience Earth..If I had a choice? I would never have been born at all..

Even though once here I see a map...some sort of rhyme or reason to my existenence in the flesh on this planet..

But the only REASON I am here is becuase my PARENTS had sex and they were BOTH fertile and it was the right day...

Its that simple..

Love

Dallas
 

Dayv

Member
This thread is quite an enjoyable read, good debating, especially on the parts of Paroxys, Autodidact, and The Voice of Reason. Anyway, icdchris' experiences with this 'god' fellow remind me quite a bit of a story I read a while back, Cold Fire, by Dean Koontz. The main character was apparently being told by some grand being to go on these long journeys on a regular basis to save people that would be in danger. A journalist gets involved and they set out to try and figure out what's going on. At first it's thought it may be god, but then they start thinking maybe aliens, but they end up discovering (spoiler warning here if anyone cares to read it, I'm pretty much laying out the ending for you) that this voice is in fact the main character's own mind and he is apparently quite an uber psychic.

They start to question the voices omnipotents because the stuff it's saying just doesn't add up, sounds a bit...not-all-powerful (childish isn't quite it, but like how you would expect an omnipotent being to be a step above adult), and it has a way of sidestepping questions. The reason the main character had all this going on was, essentially, because of fear, and this leads me back to the topic at hand. Perhaps, like someone mentioned (and got me started on this rant) this 'voice' is actually a reaction to fear (of mortality, I imagine) and a desperate attempt to explain the universe.

I think this may be the case because, actually, I went through similar stages when I first broke away from religion. It can be difficult to suddenly see the world in a less fuzzy light, and I attempted several times to create another, deathless universe (just check out some of my original posts, I say some crazy things). But, alas, I have grown to accept things in a more sensible light, and I think I am better of for it, because I can now focus on enjoying the little time I actually have, rather than wasting it trying to rectify baseless beliefs.

...just my two cents
 

Paroxys

Metaphysical Ruminator
In Logic read what a Cogent Arugument is.
1. Are your premises even true? Or rather, what even ARE your premises? Your explicit framework changes often, and it makes it very difficult to derive you are trying to discuss.
2. Is your conclusion even probable? If so, this would indicate that you know most of "God's" plan, which would be presumptuous to say the least.
3. How is this even relevant to the contention I raised? Your answer is completely non-responsive to the issue I brought up. Namely, how do you know your not making assumptions of other parts/interactions with them? How can you be sure you aren't being misinformed?
4. In a deductive proof of "The reason God doesn't heal amputees" inductive and cogent arguments aren't applicable (more Hume, or rather, the general definition of a deductive truth).

You were, and still are, highly inconsistent with your own words, and thereby, your framework cannot be considered "truth." (And your recent post only brings up more inconsistencies, which I will highlight).

A Yoga master can do many things with their body yet they do not live "outside" their body (and to you, outside the Universe LOL) God came into existence with the Big Bang.
This analogy doesn't work at all in this context! A yoga master cannot lift his own body, just purely with his body alone (that is, he needs external forces, such a ground to place his hands on or a ledge to grab hold of). Similarly, to "tweak" as you put it, implies external manipulation (i.e. separation from the universe) which clearly "God" cannot ontologically perform (by your definition) as he himself is the universe (contradiction with your stated framework), he is everything, and you can't be external from everything ("I am the rock, the rock is not outside the universe for me to lift," similarly, the rock is not outside the universe for me to tweak). Furthermore, "all" of yourself, cannot converse with "part of yourself" (as you are a part of God, as you exist in the universe, and "God" is the entire universe). It's like trying to touch your finger with your entire body at once. For the conversation to occur, you/your spirit/soul necessarily needs to be external of the universe, which is inconsistent with your framwork. This response is more sophistry and misdirection, and not answering my original issue, namely, that answer he gave you isn't even an answer, that it is, lo and behold, sophistry and misdirection. Also, you're still not answering the creation question, namely, why/how the Big Bang/birth of "God" occur? What came before that?

Our Spirits "reset" themselves to each situation. If I were to know all the past lives while I was here it would interfere with the experience of here. For want of a better analogy, all my memories are placed in safekeeping while I experience new ones here. Sometimes some people so have past life memories and as any Physicist will tell you, reaching an absolute is impossible so sometimes there is a small residue to the spirit of past memories. ( no I don't have any)
Does this mean that the "universe/God" has some super special awesome soul-experience sorting system? How does such said system work? Is there a possibility of a screw-up in the sorting? These premises you present are rather far-fetched (so cogently and inductively rejected). Deductively, this seems to contradicts your framework, as it 1stly, implies that that soul's grow, become more, not merely change, and constant soul resets really kinda moot soul-growth, as the soul is reset to zero constantly and continuously as time goes on.

The fact is we are still discovering the laws of physics. An electron only has mass by virtue of its speed. We know that the overwhelming vast amount of mass and energy in the Universe is still UNEXPLAINED. Is our "soul" a part of Dark Matter or Dark Energy? I don't know and God didn't tell me. If you want a better analogy of God in this contexts study Hinduism.
Apply your cogency argument here. Seems highly unlikely that Dark matter has some sort of experience encoding mechanism that then transfers it to the universal Soul data storage center. Deductively, I guess it's theoretically feasible, since you don't know the mechanics, no apparent contradictions can be determined. Interestingly enough, you use inductive arguments to serve your purpose and discount inductive evidence at the first instance it can be used against you (performative contradiction of rhetoric).

Evil does not exists. I never said it did. Bad and Evil or two different words and have two different meanings. People assign values, not God. For me to better respond I need to know what your meaning of Evil is.
Good/Bad ARE assigned values, just like Good/Evil. It was your own "God" (according to your own words) who assigned the value of "bad" to certain experiences (and by implication, good to others). So if absolute value judgments of Good/Bad exist, it means the the absolute value judgments of Good/Evil must also necessarily exist. Or rather, if absolute Good/Evil doesn't exist, then neither does absolute Good/Bad, which means that your "God" can't "want us to experience things," as a want, by definition, indicates a desire for something good, which, wouldn't exist. Either way (absolute value judgments exist/don't exist), your framework is rendered moot.

Why not? If there is a systemic similarity of thought and message with NO apparent connection one can use it ontologically. One can also argue your way but again, I offer arguments, you try to state facts.
UHHHH no, try again, an ontological proof of something means its proven deductively, you can't use inductive evidence in a deductive proof. Also, just because you can't PERCIEVE an apparent connection, doesn't mean it doesn't exist (again, Hume, plus there's an easy connection with all of them, they all try to answer the question of "what happens after death?" Some go with a form of reincarnation, some have concepts of eternal salvation/damnation etc., and plus, how is this even close to systemic similarity of though and message, so divergent are these messages, many people have been killed from them).

*** are you thinking? "outside the Body and thereby the Universe? LOL my house is outside my body so does that mean its also outside the Universe? ****, your arguments up to here had some very good points but this was either you not thinking or you on crack LOL

What happens if I am wrong? I die. I will not use the argument of you trying to explain though then. Think about this. If I am right and you are wrong, you will live forever and experience things to the fullness of time. If I am wrong and you are right, we will in a depressing world where we were only accidents of nature and nothing we do will mean anything.
My mistake, I meant "(and apparently, the universe)," as for your soul/spirit to converse with God/Universe, you necessarily need to be external to it. Plus, your still not refuting the main contention of the argument, that you ASSUME the existence of soul/spirit, and that they gain experience (among other, rather... interesting assumptions). These premises necessarily need to be proven true (ontologically, and not inductively), for your framework to accepted.

The fact that you state you are not attacking me is not an indication that you are not attacking me. If you truly didn't wish to insult me, then you would have left out the insulting remarks and stuck to the premises and conclusions. I don't take anything personal as i have no vested interest in you or your welfare. I know you and I will travel the same path, I just do so in THIS life with some satisfaction.
Hey, some people can take my words the wrong way (which they have, as, apparently you did, despite my honest ), I merely want to make my intentions clear. The "insults" you speak of, were not once directed at you (granted, I did "insult" your "God" which, I guess, by extension, would be insulting you and me too) as a person, but at your words, your logic (unless you are referring to my stating that your words were at times highly unclear, which isn't an insult, merely asking for clarification and for your future posts to be slightly more coherent, so I can have more relevant discussion on your framework). If I did in fact insult you, I mean it not, sometimes I get lost in my thoughts (which apparently, you saw and demonstrated) and am not realizing what exactly I am writing down. Using sarcasm and hyperbole is a very effective way to demonstrate a lapse in logic, as you yourself did "are you thinking? "outside the Body and thereby the Universe? LOL my house is outside my body so does that mean its also outside the Universe? ****, your arguments up to here had some very good points but this was either you not thinking or you on crack LOL" which personally, I don't find insulting at all.


P.S. This post seemed to be much better, that is, much easier to interpret meaning from your words than your prior post.
 

Heneni

Miss Independent
Oee...I thought I would just pop in and say that god, even if he wanted to, would have to reconstruct an amputated limb.

The only miracle in the bible that required the reconstruction of a part of the body was when Jesus healed the man that was blind from birth. He did not have ANY eyes. ( I stand to be corrected whether he infact had any eyes to start with)

A bit of spit and mud was applied. If only we knew what the secret behind the spit was:angel2:

Samson, who had his eyes removed, was not given a brand new set either. Karma perhaps. Samson removed quite a lot of limbs with the animal jawbone he used on occation. :slap:
 
Top