Assumptions behind "Why wont God heal amputees?"

[GetMeThere]

No. The point of the WWGHA is to show that "god" does NOT fulfill the promises of healing made in the bible, by looking at amputees in the current day. The PERFECT LACK of healing for modern day amputees PERFECTLY demonstrates that failure of promises--and thus the conclusion that the god of the bible doesn't exist. No search of the bible can rectify a lack of modern healings.

I'm going somewhere so i gotta make this fast
Let's take the point of WWGHA, where has God failed to fulfill a promise? When did he say he would heal amputees?
Also, saying that no amputee has ever been healed IS an assumption because you don't KNOW that there has never been an amputee healed.
Gotta go.

You're not understanding; and that's interesting. Please do see Hermes' post on this; but I'll respond also:

The WWGHA site is NOT particularly fascinated with amputees! It asks the simple question: Are the promises made to believers, as found in the bible, fulfilled? If not, it can be fairly assumed that the substance of the bible is FALSE. The argument is VERY SIMPLE:

1) NUMEROUS quotes from the bible, including direct statements by jesus, are supplied which promise that prayers will be answered.

2) MANY people pray to be healed from sickness and injury, based on those promises.

3) MANY people claim to have BEEN healed. But a problem arises: The body is BUILT to heal. MOST illnesses AND injuries heal themselves--especially with help from modern medicine. So how can anyone be SURE that the healing was caused by divine intervention? One very simple and straightforward way is to find a sickness or injury that is NEVER healed naturally OR by help from modern medicine. One has been found: A missing limb (which can be caused by disease, by congenital defect, OR by injury). If a missing limb grows back then (as far as we currently know) that regeneration could NOT be caused by any natural process. Therefore, an inference that it was caused by a SUPERNATURAL process is not unreasonable.

4) In the case of missing limbs, NO REGENERATION HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED. Since we used amputees as our test, we can conclude that GOD DOES NOT ANSWER PRAYERS FOR HEALING. Therefore the bible does not describe a real (or reliable) god.

Before you make lists of "incorrect assumptions" made by the WWGHA site you should be sure you understand the argument it is presenting. DO YOU UNDERSTAND the argument it is presenting?

[Me]

If the Bible is correct,
amputees getting restored limbs
and other supernatural miracles
should be as plentiful as confetti
on the sidewalk after a parade.

Why is that?

1. The Christian Bible has promises in it.

2. The promises are said to be kept in ambiguous situations; found keys, cancer remissions, ... .

3. The promises are not kept in unambiguous situations, such as but not limited to amputees.

What promises?  The web site's author mentions some of them;

You can see that the amputee experiment reframes our conversation. No longer are we talking about "religion" or "faith" or "God's existence". What we are talking about here is the basic human ability to process factual information. Jesus makes a number of promises about prayer in the Bible:

    * If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]

    * If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]

    * Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]

    * Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]

    * Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [Mark 11:24]

Are Jesus' promises true or false? By looking at amputees we can see that they are false. Jesus/God never answer prayers to spontaneously restore lost limbs, despite the promises in the Bible.

If you are a believer, and if this is the first time you have thought about the situation faced by amputees seriously, you may have a set of rationalizations and excuses swirling through your head right now.

So, what can we say is possible based on comparing the promises made in the Christian Bible to the what we see in reality?  A few potential conclusions come to mind;

1. The book is wrong, but the Christian deity Yahweh exists.

2. The book was right, but the Christian deity Yahweh no longer honors the book though it could.

3. The book was right, but the Christian deity Yahweh no longer honors the book because it can't.

4. The book is not relevant to the questions it raises because the Christian deity Yahweh doesn't exist.

5. The book is not relevant to the questions it raises because some other deity or deities exist, not the Christian one, and that deity or deities don't honor what they did not sign up for.

6. The book is not relevant to the questions it raises because some other deity or deities exist, not the Christian one, and that deity or deities do honor similar promises to those who pray to them or offer some other communication or gift as a bribe for the miracle.  (Example: Hindu miracles.)

I'm going with #4.  What about you?

If you read more carefully you will see that at this point that Jesus is talking to his disciples and afterwards they went out and did healings in his name. He made these promises to his disciples.
As for my pick, I'm going with #7. The book is right, God exists, and prayers concerning regrowing amputated limbs aren't consistent with his will.

You're not understanding; and that's interesting. Please do see Hermes' post on this; but I'll respond also:

The WWGHA site is NOT particularly fascinated with amputees! It asks the simple question: Are the promises made to believers, as found in the bible, fulfilled? If not, it can be fairly assumed that the substance of the bible is FALSE. The argument is VERY SIMPLE:

1) NUMEROUS quotes from the bible, including direct statements by jesus, are supplied which promise that prayers will be answered.

2) MANY people pray to be healed from sickness and injury, based on those promises.

3) MANY people claim to have BEEN healed. But a problem arises: The body is BUILT to heal. MOST illnesses AND injuries heal themselves--especially with help from modern medicine. So how can anyone be SURE that the healing was caused by divine intervention? One very simple and straightforward way is to find a sickness or injury that is NEVER healed naturally OR by help from modern medicine. One has been found: A missing limb (which can be caused by disease, by congenital defect, OR by injury). If a missing limb grows back then (as far as we currently know) that regeneration could NOT be caused by any natural process. Therefore, an inference that it was caused by a SUPERNATURAL process is not unreasonable.

4) In the case of missing limbs, NO REGENERATION HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED. Since we used amputees as our test, we can conclude that GOD DOES NOT ANSWER PRAYERS FOR HEALING. Therefore the bible does not describe a real (or reliable) god.

Before you make lists of "incorrect assumptions" made by the WWGHA site you should be sure you understand the argument it is presenting. DO YOU UNDERSTAND the argument it is presenting?

I UNDERSTAND, I said I was NOT directing this at the site but rather at the QUESTION the site uses, you must know that this site probably wasn't the first to come up with the "Why wont God heal amputees?" question.
LEARN TO READ

Got Questions is not always going to be my opinion but it matched this time so about that whole light thing,
They say "oh the world must be billions of years old cause we see stars that many lightyears away so the bible is wrong so God doesn't exist", well the Bible says an all powerful God exists, wouldn't he be able to bring the light of the stars to us? So basically they are arguing God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist.

Welcome back. Actually got questions gives a very pathetic example of how the universe can be 6000 years old even though light seems to be billions of years old. I hate to break it to you but the universe is not 6000 years old. Science has proven that.

By saying god in his infinite glory was able to make it seem billions of years old is just a cop-out answer and an avoidance to having a discussion about it.

So how do scientists know how far away the stars are? Science has produced no means of measuring the distance to something even one lightyear away, my problems with Parallax? First, how do they know for sure that they are looking at the same star. Second, the distant stars would seem to move as well. Not to mention, scientists say the big bang created the universe? If so wouldn't the stars have started close to Earth? Meaning we could have seen the star's light since they were created. Fair argument?

[Emily]

Not to mention, scientists say the big bang created the universe? If so wouldn't the stars have started close to Earth? Meaning we could have seen the star's light since they were created. Fair argument?

Nope. Not fair arguement. This would imply that the big bang happened where the earth is. Probably did, probably didn't. I don't have the information to say where the big bang happened, in the present universe, but science does know that it did happen.[1]. Also the earth was formed 10 billion years after the big bang so no, stars would not be formed close to the earth.

Science has produced no means of measuring the distance to something even one lightyear away, my problems with Parallax?

Parallax is only good for a couple hundred light years. There are other means such as luminosity of the star (meaning further stars will be dimmer.[2]

Watch this video for the techniques astronomers use to measure the distance of star
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk[/youtube]

First, how do they know for sure that they are looking at the same star.

Stars have coordinates in the sky. Just research the star catalogue;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_catalogue

That's how they know they are looking at the same star. For example: I have a telescope with GOTO technology (meaning it's a computerize telescope using GPS to determine my location and based on my location I can find a star's and planet's location based on the star catalogue and the coordinates assigned.) Based on the coordinates in my telescope's computer system I am able to type in what I want to see, whether it be a star or planet. I type in Saturn (or whatever I want to view) and it takes me to Saturn (or whatever I want to view)[3]

More about coordinates;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_coordinate_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination

Somemore catalogues;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_catalogue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_General_Catalogue

Hubble has taken photographs of the earliest galaxies, 300 million years after the big bang;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/

Hubble's successor, which will launch in 2015 and will view deeper than Hubble can;
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

1.	http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html
2.	really that's in a nutshell
3.	Also I've seen Andromeda's also, based on it's coordinates in the solar catalog.

[GetMeThere]

You're not understanding; and that's interesting. Please do see Hermes' post on this; but I'll respond also:

The WWGHA site is NOT particularly fascinated with amputees! It asks the simple question: Are the promises made to believers, as found in the bible, fulfilled? If not, it can be fairly assumed that the substance of the bible is FALSE. The argument is VERY SIMPLE:

1) NUMEROUS quotes from the bible, including direct statements by jesus, are supplied which promise that prayers will be answered.

2) MANY people pray to be healed from sickness and injury, based on those promises.

3) MANY people claim to have BEEN healed. But a problem arises: The body is BUILT to heal. MOST illnesses AND injuries heal themselves--especially with help from modern medicine. So how can anyone be SURE that the healing was caused by divine intervention? One very simple and straightforward way is to find a sickness or injury that is NEVER healed naturally OR by help from modern medicine. One has been found: A missing limb (which can be caused by disease, by congenital defect, OR by injury). If a missing limb grows back then (as far as we currently know) that regeneration could NOT be caused by any natural process. Therefore, an inference that it was caused by a SUPERNATURAL process is not unreasonable.

4) In the case of missing limbs, NO REGENERATION HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED. Since we used amputees as our test, we can conclude that GOD DOES NOT ANSWER PRAYERS FOR HEALING. Therefore the bible does not describe a real (or reliable) god.

Before you make lists of "incorrect assumptions" made by the WWGHA site you should be sure you understand the argument it is presenting. DO YOU UNDERSTAND the argument it is presenting?

I UNDERSTAND, I said I was NOT directing this at the site but rather at the QUESTION the site uses, you must know that this site probably wasn't the first to come up with the "Why wont God heal amputees?" question.
LEARN TO READ

You understand? But your response is "I said I was NOT directing this at the site but rather at the QUESTION the site uses" ??

How about a response to the POINTS I've raised?

[Me]

You're not understanding; and that's interesting. Please do see Hermes' post on this; but I'll respond also:

The WWGHA site is NOT particularly fascinated with amputees! It asks the simple question: Are the promises made to believers, as found in the bible, fulfilled? If not, it can be fairly assumed that the substance of the bible is FALSE. The argument is VERY SIMPLE:

1) NUMEROUS quotes from the bible, including direct statements by jesus, are supplied which promise that prayers will be answered.

2) MANY people pray to be healed from sickness and injury, based on those promises.

3) MANY people claim to have BEEN healed. But a problem arises: The body is BUILT to heal. MOST illnesses AND injuries heal themselves--especially with help from modern medicine. So how can anyone be SURE that the healing was caused by divine intervention? One very simple and straightforward way is to find a sickness or injury that is NEVER healed naturally OR by help from modern medicine. One has been found: A missing limb (which can be caused by disease, by congenital defect, OR by injury). If a missing limb grows back then (as far as we currently know) that regeneration could NOT be caused by any natural process. Therefore, an inference that it was caused by a SUPERNATURAL process is not unreasonable.

4) In the case of missing limbs, NO REGENERATION HAS EVER BEEN RECORDED. Since we used amputees as our test, we can conclude that GOD DOES NOT ANSWER PRAYERS FOR HEALING. Therefore the bible does not describe a real (or reliable) god.

Before you make lists of "incorrect assumptions" made by the WWGHA site you should be sure you understand the argument it is presenting. DO YOU UNDERSTAND the argument it is presenting?

I UNDERSTAND, I said I was NOT directing this at the site but rather at the QUESTION the site uses, you must know that this site probably wasn't the first to come up with the "Why wont God heal amputees?" question.
LEARN TO READ

You understand? But your response is "I said I was NOT directing this at the site but rather at the QUESTION the site uses" ??

How about a response to the POINTS I've raised?

I answered the QUESTION YOU ASKED. Why I didn't bother to address your points is for me to know and for you to find out.
btw, here's you answer
not been recorded does NOT mean never happened.
also God does NOT have to say yes to EVERY SINGLE PRAYER FOR HEALING
God does what is BEST for us not what we WANT but he still lets us make choices
and therefore come up with another question cause this question is based on FALSE assumptions

[Me]

Not to mention, scientists say the big bang created the universe? If so wouldn't the stars have started close to Earth? Meaning we could have seen the star's light since they were created. Fair argument?

Nope. Not fair arguement. This would imply that the big bang happened where the earth is. Probably did, probably didn't. I don't have the information to say where the big bang happened, in the present universe, but science does know that it did happen.[1]. Also the earth was formed 10 billion years after the big bang so no, stars would not be formed close to the earth.

1.	http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

Scientists say everything was created by the big bang, that includes Earth and stars. Therefore they were created in relatively the same area.

[Ambassador Pony]

Got Questions is not always going to be my opinion but it matched this time so about that whole light thing,
They say "oh the world must be billions of years old cause we see stars that many lightyears away so the bible is wrong so God doesn't exist", well the Bible says an all powerful God exists, wouldn't he be able to bring the light of the stars to us? So basically they are arguing God doesn't exist because God doesn't exist.

So, your argument is that the christian deity-type is a liar? Gotcha.

Me,

You're saying your deity did this, but created it in such a way as to be 100% consistent with what one would expect if the stars were billions of years away (the conclusion all the tons of evidence points to). That's lying. Your excuse/rationalisation is that your deity, the particular one you believe exists because of where and when you were born (you know, the actual, for realsies one true god), lied.

[Emily]

Not to mention, scientists say the big bang created the universe? If so wouldn't the stars have started close to Earth? Meaning we could have seen the star's light since they were created. Fair argument?

Nope. Not fair arguement. This would imply that the big bang happened where the earth is. Probably did, probably didn't. I don't have the information to say where the big bang happened, in the present universe, but science does know that it did happen.[1]. Also the earth was formed 10 billion years after the big bang so no, stars would not be formed close to the earth.

1.	http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

Scientists say everything was created by the big bang, that includes Earth and stars. Therefore they were created in relatively the same area.

No! The big bang happened 10 billion years before the formation of the earth so they did NOT happen at the same place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

The universe was created at the time of the big bang, but not the things IN the universe, only the elements to make the things in the universe. There are things constantly being formed out there in space.

[Emily]

Me, let me ask you something. What do you think the big bang was?

A) An explosion
B) An expansion

[Hermes]

If you read more carefully you will see that at this point that Jesus is talking to his disciples and afterwards they went out and did healings in his name. He made these promises to his disciples.

If that is the case, and I think it is not and you are showing a lack of understanding of your own religious book, then why take any of the Bible as relevant to what happens here and now?

As for my pick, I'm going with #7. The book is right, God exists, and prayers concerning regrowing amputated limbs aren't consistent with his will.

That's just a repeat of #2;

2. The book was right, but the Christian deity Yahweh no longer honors the book though it could.

[GetMeThere]

I answered the QUESTION YOU ASKED. Why I didn't bother to address your points is for me to know and for you to find out.
btw, here's you answer
not been recorded does NOT mean never happened.
also God does NOT have to say yes to EVERY SINGLE PRAYER FOR HEALING
God does what is BEST for us not what we WANT but he still lets us make choices
and therefore come up with another question cause this question is based on FALSE assumptions

We've been through these before. They're childish responses. I put the MOST childish one in blue. It's exactly the sort of thing a second grader might say. The very simple fact is that nobody has ever reported such a thing--and it's not something that's easily missed. Therefore, an initial observational conclusion that it doesn't happen is perfectly reasonable and justified.

You know that. Anyone who can read or write knows that. Yet you won't admit it. Why? Does defending your religion or your bible turn you into a babbling idiot?

Furthermore, regarding what god promises, explain why these words spoken by jesus don't apply:

Matthew 8:

19: "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20: For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

That above does NOT address only the apostles is shown by the phrase "if two of you on earth agree." Obviously, the broad descriptor "on earth" refers to all people. The statement is specific, and refers to "anything you ask for." There are no qualifications. These verses specifically say that as long as two people ask together and agree a request for ANYTHING will be done by the father in heaven. These verses are not limited in any way by your qualifiers, quoted again below:

also God does NOT have to say yes to EVERY SINGLE PRAYER FOR HEALING
God does what is BEST for us not what we WANT but he still lets us make choices

[Dkit]

Not to mention, scientists say the big bang created the universe? If so wouldn't the stars have started close to Earth? Meaning we could have seen the star's light since they were created. Fair argument?

Nope. Not fair arguement. This would imply that the big bang happened where the earth is. Probably did, probably didn't. I don't have the information to say where the big bang happened, in the present universe, but science does know that it did happen.http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html. Also the earth was formed 10 billion years after the big bang so no, stars would not be formed close to the earth.

Scientists say everything was created by the big bang, that includes Earth and stars. Therefore they were created in relatively the same area.

No! The big bang happened 10 billion years before the formation of the earth so they did NOT happen at the same place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

The universe was created at the time of the big bang, but not the things IN the universe, only the elements to make the things in the universe. There are things constantly being formed out there in space.

I'm getting the impression that Me is having trouble understanding how utterly enormous the universe is.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcBV-cXVWFw[/youtube]

[Hermes]

HD 3D version;



~3 minute mark shows the 'fly-by'.  Be sure to click he HD button to the lower right hand corner.

[GetMeThere]

HD 3D version;



~3 minute mark shows the 'fly-by'.  Be sure to click he HD button to the lower right hand corner.

REALLY cool !

For me there's also sadness. We will NEVER know about ALL the life there MUST be out there. Their stories, what their lives were like. Perhaps there are nearly COUNTLESS beings out there almost exactly like us. It's painful to know that we'll never understand their experiences, expression, art...

[Levan]

Hello! I am a new member, nice to meet you all!

In response to

God does what is BEST for us not what we WANT but he still lets us make choices

then I suppose I should answer that it would be best for everyone to believe, since then we could be with your God forever and ever. To accomplish that, God could heal an amputee.

You have the choice to ask for it, it's best for both you and the amputee, and it's what you both want. I mean, what could possibly be better than eternal life and salvation?

And to

not been recorded does NOT mean never happened.

I would like to make something very clear.

The question is not "could it have ever happened". The question is, "do we possess enough evidence to justify belief that it has happened". Since what you are making is a very extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary evidence.

If I were to go on to say that Zeus exists, using your logic, I could say this: "never been proven does NOT mean never existed" and then expect people to believe in it. That's exactly what you're doing now.

But even though Zeus has never been proven not to exist, you can still say that he doesn't. Why? Because you make conclusions based on the information you have, and we possess no evidence of Zeus being more than a mythical being. Therefore, with the information we have, we can say with certainity that Zeus does not exist.

...I probably wrote much more than what was neccessary. I'm sorry...

[Levan]

Also, I'm sorry to write again before anyone else had a chance, but:

Assumption 8: God honors the promises He made.

It kinda just popped into my head, and I had to write it ^^;

[blahsphemer]

Let's take the point of WWGHA, where has God failed to fulfill a promise? When did he say he would heal amputees?

He implies it when he  says this;
 \/  \/  \/
James 5:15-16:
And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
Sense the  prayer for an amputee doesn't work, there are ether no righteous men 'Christians' or god was just lying when he said they could in James 5:15-16.
 

[Blaze]

God does NOT have to say yes to EVERY SINGLE PRAYER FOR HEALING

Then why does The Bible say this:

*For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

*For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

*If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

*Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

*I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

*Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

*All things are possible to him who believes.

*For with God nothing will be impossible.

Quoting the words of the author of the site, "God says nothing is impossible if you believed in God, but in fact, many things are impossible for us. We cannot move a mountain, for example." And since God says ANYTHING is possible if you prayed, healing amputees is certainly more than possible. Therefore, every amputee who prays along with his/her family or friends should get his/her limbs back. Healing an amputee isn't an exception, as the Bible clearly states, "If two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven" and "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.", etc. Therefore, it is clear that the God of the Bible promises to answer EVERY prayer, without any exceptions. It does not matter if it is his will, because if it was, he would have added "unless of course, it's my will, which won't be in most cases". As this is not the case, God should heal ALL amputees who pray. Since this does not happen, the most logical solution is that God does NOT exist. If any other explanation exists which abides by the arguments mentioned above, feel free to share it with us.

[Levan]

I've been assuming that the Christians that come here have already read this website. And, of course, their Bibles.

Given the high number of people that have posted in the Mailbag saying they are able to smash all our arguments, you'd think that most have...

[ricky]

-You are the reason God might not heal amputees.

You declared it with your own mouth. You said He wouldn't heal them. Read my post carefully. Amputees who would have, could have been healed will suffer because of the words of your mouth.
take the miracle of Jeanna Giese. Her story was a good story, but the
author jumped to a fictitious  amputee or amputees example.

"Or did something else happen? " Jeanna Giese story was a perfect
ilustation of prayer wide spread prayer persistant prayer moving an almighty spirit in
response to faith and mercy hope and love.  I like to always ask What is the difference
between religion and relationship with God through, through Jesus covenant? We who
operate in covenant get results. The Bible tells us God has prepared it all for us who
would covenant with Him to obtain results as we keep the rules of engaging covenant.
One thread said I must be special (being a sarcastic statement) God does not play me
special. He plays special to His covenant. I have accessed His covenant since 1961.

Each of us is in a covenant with God. Like it or not God through Jesus
gave us keys to God's kingdom. Keys are used to lock and unlock
doors and treasure chests.

Jesus says to you and me: Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

You locked the door for amputees. God honors your statement.
He is a faithful God and does not play favorites. Some Christians
use their keys to lock the promises of God. Some say the gifts of
the Holy Spirit ceased when the early church began. They are mistaken.
God also said in the Old Testament: My people are destroyed for lack of
knowledge  because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee
 thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. ((That's
you.  Thus are God's children destroyed. Inheriting the penalty for
rejecting knowledge and worse pushing away knowledge. Worse
yet preventing those who would embrace knowledge. You don't
want knowledge and you don't want anyone outside of your circle
to enjoy the fruits of knowledge.

Excellent question. You answer it with your own mouth.
  "Does God answer prayers? If so, then how do we explain this disconnection between God and amputees?
What should we do with the piece of empirical data that amputees represent?
We need to somehow explain why God would answer millions of prayers on earth,
yet completely ignore prayers for amputated limbs. Let's examine the possible explanations one by one."

You are the disconnect sir.

[Levan]

Please please please please please tell me that you can make sense.

First, summarize your post. Then we can talk.

[Aaron123]

Not sure I should say "welcome" or "hello drive-by"...

-You are the reason God might not heal amputees.

You declared it with your own mouth. You said He wouldn't heal them. Read my post carefully. Amputees who would have, could have been healed will suffer because of the words of your mouth

Ho ho, that dumbass god, can't even do anything just because someone sprouted jibba-jabba!  

The rest is just One True Christian(TM) word salad.  Move along folks, nothing to see here...

[Noman Peopled]

Scientists say everything was created by the big bang, that includes Earth and stars. Therefore they were created in relatively the same area.

Oh my Lord Vader.

I appreciate your effort here (I bloody hate drive-bys, so thanks), but please would you take a better look at what you're trying to attack in debate? Big bang theory says no such thing.



Also, just to say something relevant to the OT, "you can't prove it never happened" is a piss-poor reason to believe anything. You can't prove smurfs don't exist. What of it? If I believed in smurfs you'd be very quick to point out that none were ever observed under credible circumstances.
You don't believe everything that isn't disproven.

The site's main argument is based upon observation. It is indeed an assumption, but far from a baseless one. Should spontaneous supernatural leg-sprouting occur and be documented, it will cease to be relevant.



Bonus section: you do realize that it's not so simple to disprove one or two scientific findings in order to declare the earth is 6000 years old?
You'd have to disprove quantum theory (and with it atomic theory, quantum chemistry), general relativity, evolution.
Please note that most of these are regularly applied with demonstrable effects. GPS doesn't work without relativity, which also says the earth is much older than 6000 years. DVD players don't work without quantum theory, which also says the earth is much older than 6000 years. A-bombs don't explode without atomic theory, which also says the earth is much older than 6000 years.
This list isn't comprehensive by far. We haven't even scratched geology and tectonics. Never mind that written history and dendrochronology ("counting and comparing tree rings") already go back further than 6000 years.

So yeah, god is all-powerful so he could account for everything.
How many other all-powerful gods that could account for that don't you believe in? Why the one from the bible?
Your rebuttal is not an argument simply because it can be applied to everything equally. What you're giving us is not a reason to believe; rather, your argument is basically: "it could still be true if ...".

[DragoFireheart]

Me, let me ask you something. What do you think the big bang was?

A) An explosion
B) An expansion

C) An explosion relative to me, but an expansion relative to the Universe as a whole.