Why doesn't God cure amputees?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, I first wrote 'proof of God', then realised it logically needed to be a broader term. The context for which I was using supernatural was to imply that it was a miracle. It couldn't have happened by natural causes, and so must have come by something outside of the natural laws.

That's what I was getting at: I don't think there's such a thing as "outside of the natural laws". I'm open to the possibility that there are natural laws we don't know about; I'm even open to the possibility of unknown natural laws within which God/god/gods would work, but I don't think that the limits of human understanding create any sort of real or physical distinction other than the distinction in our own heads.

I actually think your response to the question is quite telling - it sounds like to you the spontaneous reappearance of a limb would not be sufficient to inspire faith in God.

Probably not. I'd be quicker to attribute it to a funky mutation involving stem cells (or something like that) than the actions of a deity. Personally, I don't tend to replace "I don't know how that happened" with "God must have done it".

But I think you can appreciate I am getting at the Babel Fish argument:

"God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.

Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. It therefore proves God exists, but by God's own arguments God does not exist.

God realizes (S)He hadn't thought of that and promptly disappears in a puff of logic."

Yeah... I never found that a particularily compelling argument; why can't God prove Himself? So people know He exists; so what?

Actually, if you go by what Sandy and others have said in other threads, we all have knowledge of our Creator anyhow (which apparently makes it okay to punish non-Christians with fiery torment, but that's a topic for another thread), so if that's correct, no matter what God does to show Himself, He wouldn't be telling us anything we didn't already know.

Also, as the kicker, most religious traditions include beliefs about God proving His existence at one time or another; how would this be any different? I mean, how would regrowing someone's limb be any different in this regard than, say, Christ bringing Lazarus back from the dead or appearing before the Apostles at Pentecost, or God turning the rivers of Egypt to blood? If God isn't allowed to heal a severed limb for fear of proving his existence, then doesn't that negate pretty well all the miracles described in the Bible (or the Qu'ran, or the Book of Mormon, etc., etc.)?

 

[Magic Man]

Good summing up, and I will explain why I believe 2b. With a question.

If solid evidence was presented to you that an individual had a limb restored via prayer, would this not form a basis for undeniable proof of the existence of the supernatural?

Isn't that kind of implied? If solid evidence of anything happening because of prayer would sort of be proof of the supernatural. For instance, someone curing the blind or making the lame walk. If that was done by someone 2,000 years ago who claimed that it was through God's power, that would be such evidence. The question is why would that happen only to people like that? Why not cure amputees? The implication is that since there have never been reports of amputees cured, the claim that Jesus cured those people or that others have been cured by God are false.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Also, as the kicker, most religious traditions include beliefs about God proving His existence at one time or another; how would this be any different? I mean, how would regrowing someone's limb be any different in this regard than, say, Christ bringing Lazarus back from the dead or appearing before the Apostles at Pentecost, or God turning the rivers of Egypt to blood? If God isn't allowed to heal a severed limb for fear of proving his existence, then doesn't that negate pretty well all the miracles described in the Bible (or the Qu'ran, or the Book of Mormon, etc., etc.)?

Sorry for cutting the rest of the post out, but this seemed to be the key point, and it is an excellent question.

I'm going to get back to you on this, as I seem to remember a quote in a book I read which I would like to read over to help me explain. I've been trying to hammer out a response for a little while now and I can't quite organise my thoughts

 

[TerranIV]

I thought you were talking about nowadays. He did make the lame walk.

I'm talking about EVER. Jesus never healed any amputee - unless you count the soldier's ear he "healed". It doesn't actually state Jesus made the soldier's ear "grow back" only that the "healed" it - so that could just mean he made the bleeding stop. There is no time any amputee is explicitly healed in the bible.

God couldn't even help Samson's hair grow back faster when his hair was cut off by his evil wife! Why can god stop the sun in the sky but not help one of his followers out by growing pack a part of their bodies? (I realize god might have been angry at Samson for telling the secret of his strength or whatever so I'm willing to let that one go.)

Jesus is as the right hand of God, and He's the only one that's ever done that.

Actually the apostles preformed these miracles too. You might check out Acts 5:12-16

"12And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. 13And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. 14And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.) 15Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid [them] on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. 16There came also a multitude [out] of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one."

So apparently Jesus' apostles could heal as well. I don't see "those who lost hands and feet had their missing limbs returned to them" in there though.

 

[Aten]

God doesnt have any limbs anyhow, why should he cure ones with more than him anyhow, look at my snake that i made, that dont complain, that moves about fine, it even goes up trees, im fed up of people complaining. I cant be everywhere at once you know.

 

[TerranIV]

Friend TerranIV,

Can you quote that god that lied?
Please do so and shall explain.

Love & rgds

Sure! How about Matthew 21:22 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

Don't tell me you think there has never been some faithful christian amputee, somewhere it history, who has asked a faithful and fervent prayer to Jesus to heal their amputated hand (or foot or whatever). I'll bet a lot of believing christians who bled to death on the battle field from a severed arm or leg. I'm sure they were praying pretty hard to be cured before they died.

 

[TerranIV]

"Well, I guess God was a lot more demonstrative
Back when he flamboyantly parted the sea"
- Bad Religion

This is off topic a bit but I wanted to point out it was really Cecil B. Demille who made it so flamboyant. It actually took many hours for the Reed Sea to be parted.

Exodus 14:21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the asea; and the Lord bcaused the csea to dgo back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea edry land, and the fwaters were gdivided.

Notice how it took "all that night" for the sea to become "dry land". That might have been a specific route which was known to dry up every year and so that is why they were going that way. This would also explain why the Egyptians were so confident they could also cross - it wasn't that unknown for flood plains to dry out with the seasons in Egypt. The Nile flooded every year - this is how their crops were grown. The Reed Sea could have been a flood plain of the Nile River which the Jews were heading towards because it was known it would be dry soon.

Taking stories like the parting of the Reed Sea (not the Red Sea of course) out of context does make them seem miraculous. If you were to actually witness any of these "miracles" you would see they were not as magical as they seem.

 

[TerranIV]

Why should He?

Because supposedly god has unlimited powers and has promised to answer the prayers of the faithful.

 

[TerranIV]

No reason at all, but this still leaves two possibilities:

Forgive me for cutting out the first stating of your reasons.

1. God doesn't heal anyone.
2a) God is irrational or arbitrary (which, IMO, implies that God is not just).
2b) There is a substantive difference between amputees and the people that God does heal that is at the root of His decision not to heal them.

There's no inherent logical contradiction in any of these positions, but each one creates implications that people may or may not agree with, and claiming that 1 isn't true implies that either 2a) or 2b) must be true.

Your 2b reason is this also implies either
1. God doesn't have the power to heal amputees for some reason (which conflicts with the idea of god as "all powerful").
or
2. God doesn't honor the prayers of amputees for some reason (which seems like he/she/it should make those kind of exceptions known to people before they devote their lives to god.) Hopefully there are not other hidden exceptions to following god.

The Pearly Gates
Dead man: Ok, I'm here to get into Heaven!
St. Peter: Um, I'm sorry, what?
Dead man: I'm here for Heaven. I was a devoted follower of god. I sang his praises my whole life!
St. Peter: Oh no! I'm sorry. You must have missed the fine print. Musicians are not worthy of god's love. Off you go to Hell!

 

[TerranIV]

You certainly raise a valid point, though it is simply an offshoot of that perpetual question of why God allows human suffering. But I seek to address a specific point you made about prayers going unanswered.

God has never promised to us that he will answer all our prayers in a fashion that gives us all that we desire. It is important to remember the context in which promises in scripture are made, and determining the context can be difficult. Many of the more powerful promises are addressed specifically to disciples and prophets, and also for specific things. We have a tendency to generalise these promises and wonder why they do not work when we apply them. They were never ours in the first place.

The promises made to us tend to be far more conditional. We must be worthy, have faith, be humble. The desire has to be in line with the will of God. There are times when we must accept with faith the tragic aspects of life (death, illness and injustice) as a necessary aspect of our mortal experience. Sometimes it is given to us that God will give us what we want, the rest of the time He will give us the comfort and strength to deal with the harsher elements of life, provided we remain faithful.

If I told you I would pay you for building me a house and then when you finished and came to me for payment I was like, "Um, I didn't mean money! I meant I would think of some other nice thing to do for you someday. Something you don't even know you want!" You would call the police and have me arrested, or burn down the house you made, or at least you would have been upset and vowed never to build a house for me again!

They scripture doesn't say, "Ask something I am already going to give you because that is what you need and it shall be given unto you" or "Go ahead and ask for something and I may give you something if I feel like it" it is "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Matt 21:22) If there were provisions to this, it should have been stated differently or directly after.

(Of course the Book of Mormon edits (or "corrects") this to say, "And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you." 3Ne. 18: 20 which basically makes it worthless. What does "right" mean? Whatever god feels like? Why would you even ask then? Of course later in Morm. 9: 21 it states "Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth." which seems like an even bigger promise than the Bible version! Even to the ends of the earth! Has the earth ended?)

Why should god be given free ride to break his promises? Saying, "God is going to answer your prayers some other way from what you ask him." is basically saying he is not answering them at all. Which just makes him a liar (or the Bible and Book of Mormon are misleading at best - completely false at worst.)

 

[TerranIV]

Apparently god does cure some amputees:

Newt Limb Regeneration Time-Lapse Pictures

Maybe newts will inherit the earth?

The ARE meek!

 

[TerranIV]

Good summing up, and I will explain why I believe 2b. With a question.

If solid evidence was presented to you that an individual had a limb restored via prayer, would this not form a basis for undeniable proof of the existence of the supernatural?

Let me answer your question with another question: If solid evidence for ANY miracle were out there wouldn't that be proof of the supernatural? Why would an amputee healing miracle have any more evidence than any other kind? All it would take would be someone with a strange shaped hand to say he was cured and this is he second hand which was grown back by god. He could make photoshoped photographs, forge hospital documents, and come up with plenty of witnesses.

If we are taking PROOF then you would have to have a widely disseminated photograph of someone with a amputated hand. Have many witnesses (hopefully with video and many photos taken my various people) of the person living their life with not hand, and then miraculously suddenly having their hand either grow back or pop into existence. This never happens with ANY "miracle" so why would we expect an amputation miracle have so any more concrete evidence than others?

I postulate the reason why no mainstream religion publicly states "god will heal your amputated arm" because we know it NEVER HAPPENS. God is only advertised to do things which happen all the time. If religions started expecting actual miracles from god which were outside of normal occurrences they would be sorely disappointed and would loose too many members because their lies would be obvious to everyone. Of course their are miracles with supposedly happened in the past and future miracles which they can look forward to, but nothing which might actually happen during your lifetime.

 

[zenzero]

Friend TerranIV,

Sure! How about Matthew 21:22 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

Don't tell me you think there has never been some faithful christian amputee, somewhere it history, who has asked a faithful and fervent prayer to Jesus to heal their amputated hand (or foot or whatever). I'll bet a lot of believing christians who bled to death on the battle field from a severed arm or leg. I'm sure they were praying pretty hard to be cured before they died.

Though have not much idea about what Mathew wrote but surely they are not God's words as there is no one as god.
God is only a concept developed by man's imagination.
Love & rgds

 

[TerranIV]

Yeah, I first wrote 'proof of God', then realised it logically needed to be a broader term. The context for which I was using supernatural was to imply that it was a miracle. It couldn't have happened by natural causes, and so must have come by something outside of the natural laws.

I actually think your response to the question is quite telling - it sounds like to you the spontaneous reappearance of a limb would not be sufficient to inspire faith in God. But I think you can appreciate I am getting at the Babel Fish argument:

"God refuses to prove that (S)He exists because proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing.

Man then counters that the Babel fish is a dead giveaway because it could not have evolved by chance. It therefore proves God exists, but by God's own arguments God does not exist.

God realizes (S)He hadn't thought of that and promptly disappears in a puff of logic."

I appreciate you quoting one of the great atheists of all time, Douglas Adams, but I think in reality it would work a little bit differently.

The only way a regeneration of a limb would be a "dead give away" god exists is if someone could "prove" god was the cause. As I said in one of my past posts on this topic, the military is working on a regenerative spray which will cause a freshly amputated finger to re-grow (which is actually possible naturally if just the tip is cut off and it is cleaned well - according to this article Regrowing Limbs: Can People Regenerate Body Parts?: Scientific American) and if it is successful it will not be hailed as proof of god's existence.

My point is that if science figures out a way to re-grow limbs it wont' be seen as god doing anything. Religious people may say god inspired the scientists to make the break through, but this will not be a convincing argument to most people.

One way it could be proof of god's existence would be if someone discovered the mechanism which god uses to cause the miracle to happen. Like if someone found a smoking "spiritual gun" which an angel accidentally left at the scene of a miracle. Another way would be if some religious leader called it ahead of time. "I will heal this person's amputated hand. Viola!" or (two hundred years ago) "In two hundred and fifty years god will grant mankind the powers to regrow lost limbs." That would be impressive.

As a side note, if god is so reliant on us to believe in him for him to exist, then why don't we just stop believing in him and let him go away? It's interesting how an idea which seems so atheist in origin (that people are all imagining god) is stated so bluntly in the bible (you must have faith in god). Maybe because the bible uses a different vocab word. I would argue most religious people don't share the view Douglas Adams put forth in the Babel Fish argument - that if people STOPPED having faith (or believing or imagining) in god, he/she/it would cease to exist. Of course us atheists know this is exactly what would happen.

 

[TerranIV]

God cures amputees by creating our brains big enough to develop thechnology to make prothesis.

Love

Dallas

Is god going to get us all to heaven by creating our brains big enough to develop technology to make rocket ships?

 

[TerranIV]

Friend TerranIV,



Though have not much idea about what Mathew wrote but surely they are not God's words as there is no one as god.
God is only a concept developed by man's imagination.
Love & rgds

I think we are on the same page about this one.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because supposedly god has unlimited powers and has promised to answer the prayers of the faithful.

I know He can even save an atheist.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

The promised quote wasn't where I thought it was, so I will just have to forget about it and try to answer as best I can regardless.

I actually want to pick up on a premise "Why would an amputee healing miracle have any more evidence than any other kind?" first. Primarily, I made that case given that it would be less dismissible than other 'miracle' healings. Our understanding of the workings of the human body are by no means complete, which means that many medical miracles can be dismissed (often rightly) as simply chance events. I think that spontaneous limb regeneration would be too much of an outlier for an individual to as easily reconcile it as a natural process by the human body, particularly if it were to occur either quickly or instantaneously. As with any event it would be deniable as people would put it down to other things or dismiss it as a scam, but it is my view that there would be faithless people brought to belief if such a miracle did occur that was document sufficiently to prove that it had happened.

My premise is that miracles are not intended to be proof of God, but as a reward for those with faith in circumstances when God sees it necessary to intervene. It is my view that God would not perform a miracle in the presence of, or provide a mechanism by which a miracle can be proven to, someone who does not have faith in God. It is my view that an amputee healing would be, in effect, too obviously miraculous to be reconciled with the concept that men are given free will to choose faith in God.

Thus to answer the premise made by 9-10ths_Penguin, I do not think that the old time miracles qualified as definite proof to the non-faithful either. The resurrected Jesus appeared to those who already believed in His divine nature. The raising of Lazarus occurred in the presence of those who had faith in Him, and even then some of those went afterward to His enemies to plot His downfall. Moses turning the water to blood was dismissed by Pharaohs magicians causing the Pharaoh to reject Moses.

I think that amputee healing, particularly in this modern age where it could easily be documented to such a degree as to be proven, would pose a real danger of convincing those without faith of the existence of God

 

[TerranIV]

I know He can even save an atheist.

Why would god want to save an atheist?

 

[TerranIV]

I think that amputee healing, particularly in this modern age where it could easily be documented to such a degree as to be proven, would pose a real danger of convincing those without faith of the existence of God

"I think that amputee healing...to such a degree as to be proven, would pose a real danger of convincing those without faith of the existence of God" I know I just quoted it above but I had to say it again because it is such an amazing statement.

How is Jesus appearing to the "violent christian persecutor" Saul on the road to Damascus not a "danger"? How is the conversion of Alma the Younger "a very wicked and idolatrous man" which occurred with the appearance of an angel and an EARTHQUAKE(!) not "dangerous"? How is a flipping BURNING BUSH not a "danger"?!?

Saying miracles strong enough to convert people to god don't happen is not backed up by scriptural history. It's nice to say miracles happened in the past or just to people who would believe, except their are plenty of miraculous things which happened not only to non-believers, but to people who actively fought against god's chosen people.

If I'm wrong and there is a god and he tries to scold me for seeking some sort of substantial evidence for his existence I will be like that kid from the smoking commercial from the 80's. "I LEARNED IT BY WATCHING YOU!" ("I Learned It By Watching You" Anti-Drug PSA - Video)

Gods who show signs to unbelievers, inspire unbelievers who require signs.

This message brought to you by the Partnership for a God-Free America.