Actually, the fact that it's a story (Spider-Man or the Bible) is extremely relevant. Stories get written all of the time - most books in existence are fictional. Which means their plots, characters and events are not based on real life. I find that very relevant indeed since we're talking about something that's not happening in real life, not fiction.
The claim is the christian god does not heal amputees. It was demonstrated otherwise with the verse. If someone said why doesn't spiderman climb walls I could simply open a marvel comic and prove that he does. Story or not is irrelevant..
If I say Avada Kedavra to you, you'll still be alive. No matter how many people say that and no matter how vehemently they wave sticks around, you won't die. But death directly caused by those words is clearly demonstrated in Harry Potter. There are detailed descriptions of various instances of people dying as a direct cause of the death curse performed by various people. Does that make it real? Does the existence of Spider-Man comics make Spider-Man real? The character is very real in a fictional world and extremely fictional in the real world. And the latter is something that's discussed on the web page and here. We're not discussing the literary worth of one specific book, we're dealing with your claim that its contents are accurate descriptions of real-life events. That has not been demonstrated so far.
You also have to prove that God doesn't heal amputees. Oddly you don't take issue with supporting a non factual statement like this.. You also can't claim "well god doesn't exist". That itself would base the question on a false premise, and then doesn't qualify for a proper response.
Actually it's the person making the positive statement that bears the burden of evidence. Since there is no actual evidence of limbs growing back on amputees, it's perfectly valid to say it doesn't happen. There's also no evidence of children being able to fly on the back of domestic geese, therefore it's safe to say that Nils Holgersson didn't really fly on the back of one all across Sweden, regardless of how convincing Selma Lagerlöf was. Until you can provide evidence to back your claims we have every right (and as far as I'm concerned, even an obligation) to question your claims if you maintain that they're accurate and real.
So it would have been more impressive to record more bodily limbs being healed? Then you would have taken issue with how many limbs hes restoring and why he isn't doing it more frequently. The fact that their is only one healing of a limb in the bible would only attest to its rarity in occurrence.
It would be extremely impressive and quite a compelling piece of evidence to record a limb growing back on an amputee. I for one would not take issue with the frequency of the occurrence. There are events that are simply extremely rare and I think most people would accept that. However, I would only consider it evidence for a miracle if it happened in real life, not an old book that has not been proven to be relevant - I'm not even talking beyond any reasonable doubt, the Bible you're using as evidence is so replete with contradictions and sheer nonsense, it's on par with Harry Potter when it comes to describing reality. It has dragons and witches in it, after all.
People have their limbs saved all the time from dismemberment. Who's to say that this isn't Gods method by preventing amputation. It would make more sense than healing someone who is already amputated. That would be a inconsistency in Gods character. So maybe that victim prayed to have his arm or leg saved? Maybe that doctor prayed for the ability to heal, or save that victims limb. If god did not save your leg in the first place from being amputated for whatever reason, what reason is their to assume he will decide to restore it after the fact.
But the question (which is a metaphor for something else entirely) is not 'Why people don't have their limbs amputated all the time in cases where it should have happened but somehow didn't?' The question is why is god, if he really exists, either unwilling or incapable of performing such a puny miracle compared to what he supposedly did a few thousand years ago. If he really did create life and entire humans, creating a limb or an organ should be a piece of cake. Why isn't it? The same goes for everything that would take an actual miracle from god to occur. God doesn't seem to answer any substantial prayers. Why is that? Is he unwilling (and therefore either sadistic or he doesn't give a flying fuck about his own creation), incapable (and therefore far from omnipotent) or he simply doesn't exist. All of those options are completely valid and, lacking evidence to the contrary, the only possible ones. The author of the website chose the latter. So do most of us.
Let's move on ...
I made no such claim. I have no idea if God has actually healed amputees at all at some point in the last 2000 years. Maybe God did.. "so why won't god heal amputees" is not a statement of fact.
You made a claim that god does (or at least did) heal an amputee. You claim it's been documented in one particular book. So you made a positive statement. People here challenged it, demanding more evidence, because yours would need far more than a respirator, a gallon of adrenaline and a defibrillator to start breathing. Why won't god heal amputees is a question, not a statement.
So wait. You believe in luck? Do you have evidence for luck? But you scoff at other people who believe their prayers answered as nothing more than ridiculous nonsense.
I for one don't believe in luck, precisely because there's no evidence for it. Now what? People can believe whatever they want, but there's no ignoring the fact that answered prayers occur just as often as pure chance. People have 'good luck' or 'bad luck' regardless of their faith. I'm willing to bet that there's the same percentage of atheists and/or people of other faiths who have escaped amputation as there are Christians. Which makes prayer irrelevant.
So now no doctors pray? Can you verify this? Why is the doctor praying if he doesn't believe or think it will help?
Whether doctors pray or not has no bearing on the fact that they're using their knowledge and expertise, acquired through years of learning, practice and hard work, that yields results. Not prayer. There's absolutely no evidence that religious doctors perform better than non-religious ones or that Christian doctors perform better than doctors of other religions.
No sir. I don't need to demonstrate anything here. If a doctor believes god is helping him in some way then that's all that matters.
Actually, you do have to demonstrate it. You made a statement and it's up to you to prove it, not up to us to disprove it. By stating that some doctors believe god is helping them you've only demonstrated that simple statement - that some doctors believe god is helping them. Now you and they need to prove that really is the case. At least find some statistical evidence that Christian doctors who pray perform better than others, have lower mortality and morbidity rates and higher percentages of cured patients.
Again, it is
up to you to back up your claims.
God doesn't need to heal amputees if he heals their limb from being amputated in the first place. Seems like a simpler solution. Why restore the leg after the fact?
Why doesn't god save every believer from amputation, disease, distress and other maladies then? It really would be a simpler solution. Why aren't Christians healthier than people of other beliefs or no beliefs?
Then you'd be asking. "Why doesn't god just heal the leg? Why bother waiting till after its amputated? Wouldn't it be easier? So obviously god is not infallible cause he hesitates about healing limbs" Either way you would have a issue.
Exactly. God is either unwilling or incapable of such 'miracles'. And the mere fact that such miracles happen to people of other faiths and no faith as well (and as often) as to Christians, makes one thing that maybe god doesn't even exist. His chosen people should have certain privileges - you can't throw mountains into the sea by ordering them to do so (Mt 21:21-22 or Mk 11:24-25), you don't get everything you ask for (Jn 14:13-14), you can't perform the same miracles as Jesus did as he promised and so on. You can do exactly what everyone else can. Why is that?
So, you see, we do have an issue with the non-existent differences between Christians and everyone else, simply because Christians claim they can do so much more by simply praying. And yet they can't. Makes one pause, doesn't it?