Healing amputees

[OnePerson]

Miracles, and the supernatural, aren't logically capable of existing anyways.  Even if God exists, he'd fall into the realm of science as long as things still happen with a cause.

I'm not sure that miracles can't be resoanably defined, but I agree with you regarding supernatural. For example, if Jesus can explain the mechanics of turning water into wine, then' it's natural, despite our lack of understanding.

Anything that happens that we can observe falls under the realm of science.  The mechanics aren't necessary; we just have to observe it.  Then, we try to find a pattern.

[Aaron123]

Why should any of that matter?  If god healed amputees, it would benefit millions.  Why is god so vain and shallow as to be concerned about "miracles"?

Actually this site is concerned with amuptees only because such a healing would be an unambiguous miracle.

You're the one saying that god won't heal amputee because it would make such things "natural" and mundane.  I'm asking why god should be so concerned about this.  Seems awfully petty, considering that this is getting in the way of helping millions.

[velkyn]

If he does one more healing, the people who reject the first will simply reject the second.

Baseless claim.  How do you know this?  And incidentally, if God really wants me back in the flock, if he's omnipotent and omniscient he knows exactly how to get me.  But for some reason he doesn't.  He supposedly gives other believers what they want, why not me?  Where is the wound for velkyn to put her hand in? 

If he does regular healings, the healings will no longer be termed miraculous, but simply dismissed as spontaneous.

Oh my, just love these excuses.  Why not still call them miraculous?  It seems you've created a strawman, claiming things 'will' happen with no evidence of such a thing.  Did people start calling the healing and raising of the dead just "spontaneous" in the bible?  Nope, don't see that, and we have claims from the bible that he was doing lots of them, even after he was dead and there were just too many to mention.  Why do you want to claim it now? 

You see, if you think it through, the request for miracles for everyone is self-defeating. If the same miracle is performed over and over again, it's no longer considered miraculous. If different miracles were performed for each person, we would not have a basis for science as we know it, and there would be no such thing as a miracle.

  Oh I just love this one.  Funny how God didn't care about this "self-defeating" nonsense back in the OT and NT.  Indeed, JC said that one doesn't need to believe him, but to believe in the miracles he did.  Why didn't he claim that they were "self-defeating"?  No, only modern Christians who have no evidence for their primitive faith do this.  If different miracles were performed for each person, then there is less chance that it is a natural occurance and is due to "prayer".  If I am specific in a prayer and I get what I prayed for, seems to be a pretty good correlation.  But Christians have nothing like this.  Nothing at all.

[LadyLucy]

Why should any of that matter?  If god healed amputees, it would benefit millions.  Why is god so vain and shallow as to be concerned about "miracles"?

Actually this site is concerned with amuptees only because such a healing would be an unambiguous miracle.

Running away from actually thinking and answering the question as to why won't God show himself doesn't help your cause. You only prove you are weak in faith. What's worse is that your god is a fake, a phony, and a liar. Why are you even speaking for him anyway if he is so omnipotent? Who are YOU to say that since this site's title is what it is, then it's not reason enough for your god to do something?

Your god is weak. Besides, you are NOT getting the point. The title suggest the following:

If everyone in the world prays, and majority of people pray selfishly (such as, "I pray to God that my friend heals from the flu this week," then next week she heals, and you say, "She has been healed. Praise God!"), then why won't God, or any other god, heal amputees? (It is a philosophical question to make you think, but I don't think you even have the brain to think deeper. Sad.)

Allah has shown the way to me, and He most definitely hears the cries of our people. Why do you have stand up to your god the way you do, and even JUDGE him and THINK for him? Sounds more like you are protecting an imaginary friend, dear; and that's not a deity. 

[Alzael]

He bothered once, why shouldn't he bother again?

If he does one more healing, the people who reject the first will simply reject the second.

If he does regular healings, the healings will no longer be termed miraculous, but simply dismissed as spontaneous.

You see, if you think it through, the request for miracles for everyone is self-defeating. If the same miracle is performed over and over again, it's no longer considered miraculous. If different miracles were performed for each person, we would not have a basis for science as we know it, and there would be no such thing as a miracle.

He could simply perform one big miracle. One that would last and convince everyone from now and to the future. He is, after all, omnipotent and omniscient. With one act he could solve all of those problems and get the result that he apparently wants. Yet he doesn't.

It's interesting how all so often most of the explanations theists give for god are excuses for his obvious incompetence.

[rev45]

It's interesting how all so often most of the explanations theists give for god are excuses for his obvious incompetence.

It's a SPAG thing.

[Grimm]

Voter -

You are completely right - and I must give you credit - you're the first theist I've seen that's hopped on the site and actually gotten, without prompting, the point of the WWGHA question.  I wish I were kidding, but usually it takes a few weeks of explanation for it to sink in.

All in all, though, it's just a good question.  Why are all miracles attributed to God ambiguous?  And it's just one question of many - as I read your posts, your answer seems to be 'because God requires mystery'. 

My question for you is "where does it say that?"  It's a nice thought, but after being Christian most of my life, I can't remember a single place in scripture where it ever says that.  It does that that those who can believe without proof are truly blessed, and it does say that testing God is a bad thing... but it also says that even one person with the tiniest shred of faith can work astounding miracles akin to throwing mountains into the sea.

Let's make the question a bit more neutral:  L. Ron Hubbard wrote that people who achieved the level of "Clear" in Scientology would have astounding psychic powers:  perfect communication, perfect health, the ability to heal others at a touch, even psychokinesis.  To date, not a single "Clear" has ever demonstrated these abilities.   Shouldn't this make me skeptical of Scientology's premise?

To the same end, not a single Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Zoroastrianist, Savior, Healer, or Saint has demonstrated a single unambiguous act  that would equate to the mountain being tossed in the ocean, as promised by the bible.  Shouldn't I be skeptical of Christianity due to that fact?  If its followers claim miracles regularly, shouldn't even one be able to be shown to be ... well.. an actual miracle?

[jdawg70]

He bothered once, why shouldn't he bother again?

If he does one more healing, the people who reject the first will simply reject the second.

If he does regular healings, the healings will no longer be termed miraculous, but simply dismissed as spontaneous.

You see, if you think it through, the request for miracles for everyone is self-defeating. If the same miracle is performed over and over again, it's no longer considered miraculous. If different miracles were performed for each person, we would not have a basis for science as we know it, and there would be no such thing as a miracle.

The scenario you describe here isn't really helping your case - or at least doesn't sound like it.  This is how I'm interpreting this:

If god would miraculously heal people sometimes, or a lot, then the unbelievers would still be unbelievers, the believers would still be believers, and the sick would be healed.
If god did *not* miraculously heal people sometimes, or a lot, then the unbelievers would still be unbelievers, the believers would still be believers, and the sick would *not* be healed.

What it sounds like is that you are claiming that the reason god provides no miracles is that the unbelievers would simply not believe it.  But the point isn't so much as to convert the unbelievers, but to HEAL THE SICK.  Yeah, maybe he won't convert me, but isn't that fairly irrelevant to the reduction of suffering in the world???

I'm not sure what's so self-defeating about this; if he alleviates suffering, then suffering is alleviated.  There is no downside - believers will continue to believe, unbelievers will continue to not believe, the only difference being that some people, somewhere, will suffer less.  Unless the goal is to either maximize suffering or to keep suffering at some 'stable' or 'ideal' level.

[Voter]

He could simply perform one big miracle. One that would last and convince everyone from now and to the future.

Like what?

[Alzael]

He could simply perform one big miracle. One that would last and convince everyone from now and to the future.

Like what?

How should I know? He's the one with limitless knowledge and power. Shouldn't he be able to think of a way to do it on his own?

[Voter]

Baseless claim.  How do you know this?

Because he's done more than one, and the people who reject one reject them all. Stands to reason that would continue.

And incidentally, if God really wants me back in the flock, if he's omnipotent and omniscient he knows exactly how to get me.  But for some reason he doesn't.

Maybe he doesn't want you back. The Bible portrays God as giving up on people at some point. It doesn't say he'll strive with each person forever.

He supposedly gives other believers what they want, why not me?  Where is the wound for velkyn to put her hand in? 

If you get a miracle, what about everyone else? Should they get one too?

Oh my, just love these excuses.  Why not still call them miraculous?  It seems you've created a strawman, claiming things 'will' happen with no evidence of such a thing.

Unexpected and unexplained remission of cancer is termed spontaneous, not miraculous.

Oh I just love this one.  Funny how God didn't care about this "self-defeating" nonsense back in the OT and NT.  Indeed, JC said that one doesn't need to believe him, but to believe in the miracles he did.  Why didn't he claim that they were "self-defeating"?

Because they were done sparingly. The number of people in the bible who saw miracles are a tiny fraction of human population. Centuries could pass between miracles. It's only when they're overdone that it's self-defeating.

[Voter]

How should I know?

You said it was simple.

He's the one with limitless knowledge and power. Shouldn't he be able to think of a way to do it on his own?

Not if it's logically impossible.

[Ivellios]

He supposedly gives other believers what they want, why not me?  Where is the wound for velkyn to put her hand in? 

If you get a miracle, what about everyone else? Should they get one too?

Sure, why not? He's all powerful, all knowing. He should know what it would take... after all He made us this way.

There are those who can go on blind faith, and those whom he chose to create of his own violition that needs a little or lot more. He did it for Thomas... guess as far as god is concerned, everyone else can go to hell. Save the apostle, **** everyone else.

Not if it's logically impossible.

According to thiests, it's not logically impossible.

[Alzael]

How should I know?

You said it was simple.

I said "He could simply", not that it was simple. But for an all-powerful being it would be. That's kind of what all-powerful means.

Not if it's logically impossible.

First, then he isn't "all-powerful" is he. Second, what does that have to do with it? How would an all-powerful being proving his existence unambiguously to everyone not be logically possible?

You're getting worse and worse at this.

[Voter]

I said "He could simply", not that it was simple. But for an all-powerful being it would be. That's kind of what all-powerful means.

Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

First, then he isn't "all-powerful" is he. Second, what does that have to do with it? How would an all-powerful being proving his existence unambiguously to everyone not be logically possible?

I've already explained.

The same miracle repeated through time ceases to be miraculous.

A multitude of unique miracles removes the basis for science and the efinition of miracle itself.

[LadyLucy]

He could simply perform one big miracle. One that would last and convince everyone from now and to the future.

Like what?

You should know your god better than that, heathen. By the way, isn't he omnipotent and capable of everything, including controlling evil? Why do you believe in your god if he is weak and has not proven itself worthy to be of deity status? All that's left is Christians who cherry-pick the Holy Bible and thus, the original religion doesn't even exist. Not even the Fundamentalist Christians can be OneTrueChristians^tm.

You should switch to Islam. And if you don't want to, give me a legitimate reason as to why you shouldn't switch to an actual omnipotent and all-seeing deity. "Because it makes me feels good" and "because I know he exists" are not legitimate. No use playing Pascal's Wager either. So, again, why not believe in Allah? For example, I choose not to believe in Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma because their fairy-tales cannot be proven. Their pantheon is VERY huge, and their gods could not be proven to exist. I know Allah exists not only because of the Koran, but also because of Mohammad, the great prophet. Jesus was not the Son of God, but just a prophet. He was Muslim, not Jewish, according to the Koran. Jesus submitted to the word of god, and that's what made him Muslim. He foretold the coming of Mohammad.

Anyway, I don't wish to go into a tangent. Just read about the prophet Mohammad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Congratulations on the first step to proving your "god" isn't a god. Whatever happened to only your god being the only one capable of being perfect, as said by MANY Christians?

[Voter]

He supposedly gives other believers what they want, why not me?  Where is the wound for velkyn to put her hand in? 

If you get a miracle, what about everyone else? Should they get one too?

Sure, why not?

Because then the miraculous would become mundane.

[Voter]

This is an aside, but LadyAmorosa'a a troll, right?

[Azdgari]

Not if it's logically impossible.

It's logically impossible to convince everyone? 

[Ivellios]

This is an aside, but LadyAmorosa'a a troll, right?

Nope.

Whether she's being the devil's advocate or really did convert....

Edit: If you want to you can find that out for yourself.

[Azdgari]

Because then the miraculous would become mundane.

Where is the tragedy in that?

[Voter]

Not if it's logically impossible.

It's logically impossible to convince everyone? 

No, it's logically impossible to make a miracles that directly reach everyone, or at least no one's explained how it could be done.

[Voter]

Whether she's being the devil's advocate or really did convert, you'll have to find out that for yourself.

No I won't.

[Azdgari]

Not if it's logically impossible.

It's logically impossible to convince everyone? 

No, it's logically impossible to make a miracles that directly reach everyone, or at least no one's explained how it could be done.

A single miracle need not be simple.  An event whereby each person's brain chemistry was altered so that (s)he is convinced of something would be complicated, but could justifiably be seen as a single miracle.  Whether it counts as 1 miracle or ~7 billion miracles is a matter of semantics, not logic.

[Emergence]

Because then the miraculous would become mundane.

Some thoughts:

What you are arguing here (or attempting to argue, anyway) is that inflationary miracles would stop being miracles or 'uncommon' or 'unusual' and instead become 'common' or 'usual.' Is that correct?

If so: Why would a a universal proof of the existence of a personal creator of all existence (heh!) have to be 'uncommon' or 'unusual'? After all a personal creator of all existence would be - out of logical necessity - the most 'usual' and 'common' occurrence within all possible experience due to it's universality. What purpose would an artificially generated and upheld "mysterious" and "unknowable" air serve such a creator? The question becomes even stronger, if we assume the creator is interested in personal relationships with members of it's creation.

Furthermore: There are armies of humans who consider each and every occurrence in existence a "miracle" no matter how 'mundane' or 'common,' from a bee's eye to the birth of a child. And even to me, as an unbeliever who makes his living from the professional study of certain aspects of living nature, those aspects never stop to inspire my awe. Just because i deem them 'physical', 'natural' and/or 'common' doesn't mean that they lose any of their fascination and power.  What am i to make of the thought that an 'observable' and 'universal' creator that is the most 'common' "element" for all of us, might fear just that communality for all of us that makes him such a fascinating, awe inspiring occurrence?  To me that thought sounds implausible at best and utterly insane at worst.

And lastly: Say there is a miracle that appears to occur on a regular basis. Say we even can predict the circumstances of it's appearance. Just that wouldn't make it any less "miraculous" if only the circumstances of it's appearance would defy everything else we know about nature. If - say - fully formed animals unknown to any living human would appear in random living rooms around the globe during each full moon "Well that is just spontaneous!" wouldn't be an "explanation" (to use the expression loosely) that would, could, or should take away any of the miraculous nature of such an occurrence, or would it?[1]


Edit: Correcting typos. Work in progress ...

1.	Note that i do not intend "spontaneously appearing unknown animals" as proof of god(s) in any for, just as an example of a "miraculous" or "wondrous" occurrence not negate by 'usualness.'

[xphobe]

The same miracle repeated through time ceases to be miraculous.

A multitude of unique miracles removes the basis for science and the efinition of miracle itself.

Nobody's asking for the same miracle over and over, or a multitude of unique miracles - just one unambiguous miracle would be nice.

In your example of Jesus healing a dead person, he actually dawdled intentionally so that he could show off.   Here's his motivation in his own words:

"it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it". 

“Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe.”

So, Jesus not only intentionally dawdles for several days so he can show off, but he also says he is doing it for the express purpose of proving himself to his disciples.  So much for the idea of God preferring mystery and faith without proof.

In fact, God made a regular habit of grand miracles back in the day.  He made global floods, spoke directly to thousands of people at the same time, parted oceans, caused plagues.  Jesus himself walked on water, turned water into wine and bread into a lot of bread, healed sick people, raised dead people, and caused the Statue of Liberty to disappear.  No wait that last one was David Copperfield. 

So apparently God used to do all these things for his own glory and to make people believe, back when people were unsophisticated and ignorant.  But then he went dark.  2000 years later, we've got a little bit of technology under our belts, and reliable recording and communication devices.  More importantly we have some experience using the scientific method.  But God is nowhere to be found.  I don't think it's a coincidence.  Obviously God is afraid that the Masked Magician will reveal his secrets on Fox.

[Dante]

I said "He could simply", not that it was simple. But for an all-powerful being it would be. That's kind of what all-powerful means.

Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

 This is gold.

[jdawg70]

Not if it's logically impossible.

It's logically impossible to convince everyone? 

No, it's logically impossible to make a miracles that directly reach everyone, or at least no one's explained how it could be done.

How about writing 'CHA' into the moon?  I suspect many (perhaps not all, or even a majority) of people could logically witness it occurring, and most (perhaps all who are not severely vision-impaired) would eventually look up and see 'CHA' carved out of the moon.

Better yet, have the carving out happen slowly, say over a period of 2 weeks.  That would give a reasonable window for people to search around and attempt to rule out a direct physical force by a supervillian or some such being the cause.

[Ivellios]

Whether she's being the devil's advocate or really did convert, you'll have to find out that for yourself.

No I won't.

I reworded it the way I think I should have originally.