How faith healing works (and why God doesn't heal amputees)

[Anfauglir]

... Pretty sure you mean the former, but (like I say) it always pays to make sure!

Somewhat, but not quite. Can you please get over this 'your god' thing? I still do not have confirmation of whether you accept my perception of God. I suspect what you have in mind when referring to 'your god' above is not what I stated.

If you accept that we are co-creators with God and that He is not all powerful, perhaps you will be able to understand more what I mean when I say God works His miracles through men. You will note (or perhaps not) that so far I have left out timing. Deliberately so - as it is another grand topic altogether.

Hmm.  Way to avoid answering my questions there Zele.  Perhaps I'm not being clear, I'm not sure.

First off, the "your god" thing.  It IS "your god", as it certainly is not mine.  Nor, from what I've seen, is it a god that would be accepted by 100% of self-described Christians.  Its not my intention to suggest that you have made your god up in any way, just that this is "your understanding/description of god".

But back to the specific question, which so far as I can tell you did not answer - at least not so far as I was able to understand.

Are you saying that he slowly directs mankind towards the medical advances that cure disease and that that is how any healing miracles occur? 
Or are you saying that he "works miracles through men" in a more direct form - for example that a faith healer can instantaneously cure blindness or cancer or whatever as the instrument of your god?
Or both?  Because at the moment I honestly have no idea which (if either) of these is your position.

[screwtape]

Screwtapte, I am not missing the point. The question is posed with a primary aim of supporting the premise you already hold that there are no miracles.

I still think you are missing the point, but I could be wrong.  The premise is that some xians believe in miracles whereby people with certain afflictions are spontaneously healed by god, not medical science.  Furthermore, we all agree - atheists and xians alike - there are some kinds of miracles we never see.  That begs for an explanation and only certain conclusions are possible.

You are still working on defining "miracles" with Anfauglir, but from I've seen so far, it looks like you do not fit the standard example of that kind of xian.  So the question of wwgha is not germane to you.

Guess what, if you believe there are no miracles, then that is true - because that is your reality.

I disagree.  Miraculous healings arer not a subjective part of reality.  Either they happen or they do not.  It is either a part of everyone's reality, or no one's.  I do not accept the idea that it is true for me or you but not other people.

If you are not prepared to consider subjective evidence, then you will not be able to have a meaningful dialogue with someone of faith. That is also their reality.

I am not willing to consider personal, subjective evidence because it is not evidence of external reality.  This is what very smart people discovered centuries (millenia?) ago.  And so the scientific method was born.  It is how we tell what is true from what is not.  It is how we filter out our biases and preferences. 

And I could also turn that around and say if religious people are not willing to honestly deal in evidence and what is real, then they should understand rational people will not take them seriously.

How about I try the following answer. why doesn't God heal amputees? I don't know - Ask God. Does that statisfy? I suspect not.

You are right, it does not satisfy.  But it also points to a big, big problem for religious people.  Why is asking god not satisfying?

And just as a general statement and to re-iterate one of Anfauglir's points, you are using a lot of loaded language which may seem clear to you but is rather opaque to us.  When you say "god works miracles through people" or "we are co-creators with god" I honestly have only the vaguest idea of what you mean.  That leaves a lot for me to interpret and a lot of room for error.  For us to have a conversation you must explain these ideas fully. 

[zele]

Apologies for that, I'm not entirely clear on your position.

No worries. Just tell me what you are unclear about I will explain the best I can.

Do you consider this the same as the class of miracle of the subject about which we are discussing? healing miracles? I don't see it so. Please find me an example of miraculous healing in the bible where God does not employ a human.

I don't really see a difference in class of miracle. I was responding to you saying that god does not directly intervene.

OK then let's agree to disagree. I see a difference. I said God employs humans to achieve healing.

however re healing;

Exodus 15:26 ...
Psalm 107:19-21 ...
Exodus 23:25 ...
Psalm 30:2 ...
Psalm 41:2-3 ...
etc

What all these verses have in common is that they lack the kind of physical faith healing that the premise of this discussion is challenging. If I have to engage on all these, then we will start delving into a discussion about what healing actually means in these verses. Shall we just stick with amputee type healing for now?

Do you know of anywhere where it says that god only heals through man?

Again, please carefully quote what I state. God employs men to achieve healing. This is not the same as God only heals through men. For what it's worth, the healing that I am talking about here is those of the Luke 9:1 vintage.

9 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.

Again, please state whether you agree with my other positions. We will not get too far unless you tell me whether you agree/disagree and why? Please do not regurgitate to me views that you harbour from the past about others. Stick to mine - I have my work cut out to defend those.

No I don't  agree with you. I think humans through the advancement of science can heal the sick. The reason why I think this is that the advancement of science is well documented and demonstrable. Knowledge of processes can provide explanations for all that we have achieved. There is no reason to attribute human advancement to anything other than endeavor.

I did not expect you to agree. What I want you to see is that the opinion you hold that all BA Christians are 'delusional' because they have faith and not capable of critical thought is not sound. I expect that you are a healthy skeptic - right? When you talk about science being demonstrable, are you referring just to a physical demonstration?

[zele]

Are you saying that he slowly directs mankind towards the medical advances that cure disease and that that is how any healing miracles occur? 
Or are you saying that he "works miracles through men" in a more direct form - for example that a faith healer can instantaneously cure blindness or cancer or whatever as the instrument of your god?
Or both?  Because at the moment I honestly have no idea which (if either) of these is your position.

Let me try this:
Are you saying that he slowly directs mankind towards the medical advances that cure disease and that that is how any some healing miracles occur
That approximates to my position. I hope you can see in there the whole 'co-creator' thing I am on about.

[Anfauglir]

Are you saying that he slowly directs mankind towards the medical advances that cure disease and that that is how any healing miracles occur? 
Or are you saying that he "works miracles through men" in a more direct form - for example that a faith healer can instantaneously cure blindness or cancer or whatever as the instrument of your god?
Or both?  Because at the moment I honestly have no idea which (if either) of these is your position.

Let me try this:
Are you saying that he slowly directs mankind towards the medical advances that cure disease and that that is how any some healing miracles occur

Some, eh?  And the others?  The ones that are NOT the result of direction towards medical advances?  Maybe its me, but you seem singularly loathe to give an unequivocal answer on the subject.

'He sometimes "works miracles through men" in a more direct form, for example a faith healer instantaneously cure blindness or cancer or whatever' - yes or no?

[Mrjason]

Apologies for that, I'm not entirely clear on your position.

No worries. Just tell me what you are unclear about I will explain the best I can.

Ok, I'll ask for clarification below.

Do you consider this the same as the class of miracle of the subject about which we are discussing? healing miracles? I don't see it so. Please find me an example of miraculous healing in the bible where God does not employ a human.

I don't really see a difference in class of miracle. I was responding to you saying that god does not directly intervene.

OK then let's agree to disagree. I see a difference. I said God employs humans to achieve healing.

You also said that god does not directly intervene. My question about this is that as god does directly intervene (stopping the sun, the parting red sea etc) why is this not the case for healing?

however re healing;

Exodus 15:26 ...
Psalm 107:19-21 ...
Exodus 23:25 ...
Psalm 30:2 ...
Psalm 41:2-3 ...
etc

What all these verses have in common is that they lack the kind of physical faith healing that the premise of this discussion is challenging. If I have to engage on all these, then we will start delving into a discussion about what healing actually means in these verses. Shall we just stick with amputee type healing for now?

Yes. Why is the physical healing that happens in line with the medical technologies of the time of the healing. i.e. heart transplants have only been possible since we discovered the method to perform that type of healing.

Do you know of anywhere where it says that god only heals through man?

Again, please carefully quote what I state. God employs men to achieve healing. This is not the same as God only heals through men. For what it's worth, the healing that I am talking about here is those of the Luke 9:1 vintage.

9 When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.

Are you saying here that man only heals by virtue of god?

Being a pedant, luke 9 says that they have the power to heal, not that they actually do.

Again, please state whether you agree with my other positions. We will not get too far unless you tell me whether you agree/disagree and why? Please do not regurgitate to me views that you harbour from the past about others. Stick to mine - I have my work cut out to defend those.

No I don't  agree with you. I think humans through the advancement of science can heal the sick. The reason why I think this is that the advancement of science is well documented and demonstrable. Knowledge of processes can provide explanations for all that we have achieved. There is no reason to attribute human advancement to anything other than endeavor.

I did not expect you to agree. What I want you to see is that the opinion you hold that all BA Christians are 'delusional' because they have faith and not capable of critical thought is not sound. I expect that you are a healthy skeptic - right? When you talk about science being demonstrable, are you referring just to a physical demonstration?

I did not say that BA Christians are not capable of critical thought. In fact I haven't mentioned BA Christians until now. I do think belief in god is flawed. This is because I can see no evidence of supernatural involvement in our existence.
My scepticism is in good health. This is why i am an atheist.
Yes, I am referring to things that can be demonstrated within our sphere of experience. This does not mean that i need to see it to believe it. For example ,if something can be demonstrated mathematically I am likely to believe it even though “number” is an abstract concept

[zele]

....
'He sometimes "works miracles through men" in a more direct form, for example a faith healer instantaneously cure blindness or cancer or whatever' - yes or no?

Yes. And that should not be surprising to you because of this http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm  The miracle of Jeanna Giese. The plausible explanation given there is coincidence. What co-coincided? Are you at least admitting that something happened here that the medical community can not yet explain?

If that is the case, and if I choose to accept by faith that this is an act of God then I am suddenly delusional? I am curious to hear what you think co-coincided to heal the girl.

Most non-believers liberally comfortably use - nature - it is natural etc. Can you enlighten me what you mean when you utter this term?

As I have already mentioned, there are key strawmen that are set up in the book e.g God is all powerful - without any scriptural basis - and then further use that to defend various other positions. If we are to engage in genuine intellectual honesty, we need to establish an agreed foundation for having the discussions. And that can be quite daunting.

My attraction to this site derives from the fact that, some how or other, non believers think all BA  christian are not capable of critical thought. If I am wrong about that assertion, then I apologise. If my suspicions are right, then I totally reject this as I believe there is no reason why reason and faith cannot co-exist.

[screwtape]

The miracle of Jeanna Giese. The plausible explanation given there is coincidence. What co-coincided? Are you at least admitting that something happened here that the medical community can not yet explain?

When is a miracle not a miracle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_protocol

[zele]

I did not say that BA Christians are not capable of critical thought. In fact I haven't mentioned BA Christians until now.

I am sorry you are right. You did not actually say that.

I do think belief in god is flawed.

Again, you cannot have a flawed belief. Just like you cannot have 'Error in faith'. These things are inherently subjective.

This is because I can see no evidence of supernatural involvement in our existence.

Why is the 'seeing' the evidence of paramount importance? what about experiencing? what about feeling?

My scepticism is in good health. This is why i am an atheist.
Yes, I am referring to things that can be demonstrated within our sphere of experience. This does not mean that i need to see it to believe it. For example ,if something can be demonstrated mathematically I am likely to believe it even though “number” is an abstract concept

Do you know that some people cannot relate to mathematics? Are they delusional? Does that mean that Mathematics as we know it does not exist? So as you can see, we have an imaginary reality in mathematics. Or can you not see that?

[Mrjason]

I do think belief in god is flawed.

Again, you cannot have a flawed belief. Just like you cannot have 'Error in faith'. These things are inherently subjective.

You can believe in something that is not true. This does not make it real. i.e. Santa

This is because I can see no evidence of supernatural involvement in our existence.

Why is the 'seeing' the evidence of paramount importance? what about experiencing? what about feeling?

Ok. As I have said below; I am referring to things that can be demonstrated within our sphere of experience.

My scepticism is in good health. This is why i am an atheist.
Yes, I am referring to things that can be demonstrated within our sphere of experience. This does not mean that i need to see it to believe it. For example ,if something can be demonstrated mathematically I am likely to believe it even though “number” is an abstract concept

Do you know that some people cannot relate to mathematics? Are they delusional? Does that mean that Mathematics as we know it does not exist? So as you can see, we have an imaginary reality in mathematics. Or can you not see that?

We do not have an imaginary reality in mathematics. We have an abstract reality. I'll pre-empt you here, the difference between maths and god is maths is a concept which is an explanation rather than a cause.

[zele]

You can believe in something that is not true. This does not make it real. i.e. Santa

Correct. And your point is?

We do not have an imaginary reality in mathematics. We have an abstract reality. I'll pre-empt you here, the difference between maths and god is maths is a concept which is an explanation rather than a cause.

Again, I don't think we have an agreement on the God concept. How can you make a comparison with something that you profess does not exist? I was referring to imaginary reality from the perspective of those who cannot relate to mathematics.

[Mrjason]

You can believe in something that is not true. This does not make it real. i.e. Santa

Correct. And your point is?

I do think belief in god is flawed.

We do not have an imaginary reality in mathematics. We have an abstract reality. I'll pre-empt you here, the difference between maths and god is maths is a concept which is an explanation rather than a cause.

Again, I don't think we have an agreement on the God concept. How can you make a comparison with something that you profess does not exist?

Quite easily. As I say above. explanation and cause.

Indulge me

I have object A and object B. I place them both in water. Object A floats. Object B sinks.
Can you explain, without referring to maths, why object A floats and object B sinks?

Person A has an illness. Person A recovers.
Can you explain, without referring to divinity, why person A recovers?
 

[zele]

The miracle of Jeanna Giese. The plausible explanation given there is coincidence. What co-coincided? Are you at least admitting that something happened here that the medical community can not yet explain?

When is a miracle not a miracle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_protocol

I take it we are using my definition of a miracle, right? If so then I see a miracle.

By the way are you familiar with energy fields and their possible effects on healing? Are you also aware that some individuals are not subject to hypnotherapy and/or auto-suggestion? The fact that these techniques do not yet work 100%, does that invalidate them?

[zele]

I do think belief in god is flawed.

Which God? The one that I said is not in man's gift to fathom? or another one that you have fashioned in your imagination and not willing to let go of?

I have object A and object B. I place them both in water. Object A floats. Object B sinks.
Can you explain, without referring to maths, why object A floats and object B sinks?

Relative Density.

Person A has an illness. Person A recovers.
Can you explain, without referring to divinity, why person A recovers?

Person A chooses to recover and co-operates with the recovery process.

[Mrjason]

I do think belief in god is flawed.

Which God? The one that I said is not in man's gift to fathom? or another one that you have fashioned in your imagination and not willing to let go of?

any god. which i why i used a small G. I don't have any gods in my imagination that I imagine to be real.

I have object A and object B. I place them both in water. Object A floats. Object B sinks.
Can you explain, without referring to maths, why object A floats and object B sinks?

Relative Density.

density is a mathematical property.

Person A has an illness. Person A recovers.
Can you explain, without referring to divinity, why person A recovers?

Person A chooses to recover and co-operates with the recovery process.

Therefore it is possible to recover without divine aid?

[screwtape]

I take it we are using my definition of a miracle, right? If so then I see a miracle.

I'm still not sure what your definition is.   It appears to be anything you want to call a miracle.  The lightbulb, small pox vaccination, birth (specifically human), birds chirping, kittens, hula hoops, gin, glory holes.  But, as I said, I'm not sure, so all of that could be wrong.

And the question stands, what's not a miracle?

By the way are you familiar with energy fields and their possible effects on healing?

No, I'm not familiar with energy fields.  What is an "energy field"?  I'm a mechanical engineer, so I am versed in energy.  But I've no recollection of any existence of "energy fields" outside of science fiction.   Do you mean electric or magnetic fields?

Are you also aware that some individuals are not subject to hypnotherapy and/or auto-suggestion? The fact that these techniques do not yet work 100%, does that invalidate them?

Sorry. You've completely lost me.  I don't know what you are talking about nor how it relates to the conversation. 

[nogodsforme]

Hello zele. You said that absence of evidence does not mean that something does not exist. Fair enough, but why believe that something exists if there is no evidence of existence? Do you believe in anything else (besides a god) that has no evidence of existence? Ghosts, Santa's elves, telepathy, esp, alien beings from other planets?
 
What can anyone know about an unfathomable (unknowable, unexplainable) being?  How can you, zele, or anyone else tell whether this being is-- or is not-- all-powerful, or good, or miracle-performing, since this being is unfathomable?

I not trying to be funny (yet) because I really want to know where you are coming from here.

[zele]

I take it we are using my definition of a miracle, right? If so then I see a miracle.

I'm still not sure what your definition is.   It appears to be anything you want to call a miracle.  The lightbulb, small pox vaccination, birth (specifically human), birds chirping, kittens, hula hoops, gin, glory holes.  But, as I said, I'm not sure, so all of that could be wrong.

No, incorrect. It is here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle?s=t and I said I am going with 3.

And the question stands, what's not a miracle?

A big set. But take your pick from anything that is not in 3 above.

By the way are you familiar with energy fields and their possible effects on healing?

No, I'm not familiar with energy fields.  What is an "energy field"?  I'm a mechanical engineer, so I am versed in energy.  But I've no recollection of any existence of "energy fields" outside of science fiction.   Do you mean electric or magnetic fields?

Are you also aware that some individuals are not subject to hypnotherapy and/or auto-suggestion? The fact that these techniques do not yet work 100%, does that invalidate them?

Sorry. You've completely lost me.  I don't know what you are talking about nor how it relates to the conversation.

This is what I am talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_medicine

After reading that you should see how it relates to the conversation. If not, say so and I will attempt to relate it.

[zele]

Hello zele. You said that absence of evidence does not mean that something does not exist. Fair enough, but why believe that something exists if there is no evidence of existence? Do you believe in anything else (besides a god) that has no evidence of existence? Ghosts, Santa's elves, telepathy, esp, alien beings from other planets?
 

Yes. Life on other planets.

What can anyone know about an unfathomable (unknowable, unexplainable) being?  How can you, zele, or anyone else tell whether this being is-- or is not-- all-powerful, or good, or miracle-performing, since this being is unfathomable?

I take it you have not yet seen that I have already said the God I believe in is not all powerful. We are co-creators with Him of what we experience.

I not trying to be funny (yet) because I really want to know where you are coming from here.

A little light humour does not hurt.

[zele]

any god. which i why i used a small G. I don't have any gods in my imagination that I imagine to be real.

I am talking about the ones you imagine to be unreal.

Therefore it is possible to recover without divine aid?

Person A chooses to recover and co-operates with the recovery process. What is in this statement that supposes the preclusion of divine aid?

[screwtape]

I'm still not sure what your definition is.   It appears to be anything you want to call a miracle.  The lightbulb, small pox vaccination, birth (specifically human), birds chirping, kittens, hula hoops, gin, glory holes.  But, as I said, I'm not sure, so all of that could be wrong.

No, incorrect. It is here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle?s=t and I said I am going with 3.

So, something considered to be a marvel or a wonder.  That's pretty subjective.  I think all of the above could count.  I'm not sure how god working through humans had anything to do with any of those things, though (particularly the birds and kittens). 

Was it god that planted the idea for an electric light bulbs in the head of Humphry Davy?  If so, why did he not plant the idea of an LED?  Or of a yet to be discovered light source?  Or do you consider all of the above to not quite make the cut?

I think your definition is not a very good one. Not because I dislike it.  I just find it to be too vague and ambiguous to be useful.  It allows you (or me) to call anything a miracle if you (or I) find it sufficiently marvelous. 

This is what I am talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_medicine

oh my goodness. 

I am afraid I am missing the point here.

To get back to rabid Giese girl, you said you saw a miracle there.  Could you please say in what capacity was god involved, specifically? 

[nogodsforme]

Back atcha, zele, I think you are an Aussie or a Brit, 'cause you can't spell "humor". And you say "whilst". But no worries.

If a miracle is anything anyone finds wonderful (a good plate of barbecue, winning the lotto, the Grand Canyon, the Taj Mahal, a newborn baby, a coupon for a free pedicure, Thor eating pop-tarts in my kitchen) why the need to invoke anything supernatural? Well, except for the Thor part--substitute Chris Hemsworth.

The article on energy medicine said that it is bogus and the province of dupes and charlatans. At least that is what was found when people actually did studies of it. So, not sure why you linked to it.

I agree that there is probably life on other planets--but we have evidence for that. We live on a planet and there is life on it= evidence for life on at least one planet.

So you only believe in one god without evidence. Why? And how do you know what powers this god has if it is unfathomable?
BTW I must also be a miracle, since I was bitten by a rabid dog, got shots, and survived. No prayers or gods needed.

[zele]

The article on energy medicine said that it is bogus and the province of dupes and charlatans. At least that is what was found when people actually did studies of it. So, not sure why you linked to it.

To show you that the other forms of non-physical treatment were taken seriously enough to be scientifically investigated. I was hoping you will find the section which stated that the evidence is in-conclusive. If you did, then as a healthy skeptic, you should accept the possibility of that being a serious proposition. At least for now.

I agree that there is probably life on other planets--but we have evidence for that. We live on a planet and there is life on it= evidence for life on at least one planet.

Are you being serious? Can we at least agree that there is no evidence for that? What logical thinking leads you to that? The scientific community (and I also believe in science in case you had not figured that out yet), is still looking for material evidence. I have faith that there is Life on another planet.

So you only believe in one god without evidence. Why? And how do you know what powers this god has if it is unfathomable?

I believe in God - without material evidence. you do not accept non-material evidence. I cannot fathom what powers He has. Well beyond what I am able to comprehend.

BTW I must also be a miracle, since I was bitten by a rabid dog, got shots, and survived. No prayers or gods needed.

Yes you are - but my reason for saying this is different to yours. First of all, do you know how many million sperm competed to fertilize the egg that made you? And have you ever thought about the epigentic process that starts with a single cell that ends up as a human? And is that you? Or who are you? did you only become you after you took your first breadth? And are you still you when you take your last breadth? Can you see that you are truly a miracle?

[zele]

I think your definition is not a very good one. Not because I dislike it.  I just find it to be too vague and ambiguous to be useful.  It allows you (or me) to call anything a miracle if you (or I) find it sufficiently marvelous. 

Which one would you have picked from the list? First you were not sure what my definition is. I gave you one and you don't find it useful. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I hope things that marvel you are of much more complexity than hula hoops.

oh my goodness. 

I am afraid I am missing the point here.

To get back to rabid Giese girl, you said you saw a miracle there.  Could you please say in what capacity was god involved, specifically?

As I have said already many times, the god you are referring to here is not what I perceive. I started out by stating this over and over because I was pretty sure this was going to recur many times.

In answer to your question: Specifically sustaining the life of the girl during the time she was unconscious. Who or what do you think is sustaining your life right now?  Please also be very specific in a way that is helpful and unambiguous.

[jdawg70]

As I have said already many times, the god you are referring to here is not what I perceive. I started out by stating this over and over because I was pretty sure this was going to recur many times.

In answer to your question: Specifically sustaining the life of the girl during the time she was unconscious. Who or what do you think is sustaining your life right now?  Please also be very specific in a way that is helpful and unambiguous.

Body thetans.  Specifically sustaining the life of the girl during the time she was unconscious.

[Azdgari]

Which one would you have picked from the list? First you were not sure what my definition is. I gave you one and you don't find it useful. At the risk of sounding patronizing, I hope things that marvel you are of much more complexity than hula hoops.

Zele, how could he possibly assess whether or not he found your definition useful until after asking you what it was, given that he wasn't sure?  This seems like a pretty normal sequence of question-comment to me.  Your chosen definition, in the context of this discussion, is riddled with problems.  I'll let Screwtape explain those further himself, though.

In answer to your question: Specifically sustaining the life of the girl during the time she was unconscious.

That is about as vague an answer as one could possibly give.  You could have just said "I don't know", eh?

Who or what do you think is sustaining your life right now?  Please also be very specific in a way that is helpful and unambiguous.

Your question is not specific, whereas Screwtape's was.  Gease was dying of rabies, and so needed something to help combat the rabies in order to stay alive.  Generally we don't need something to keep us alive, beyond the machinery already in our bodies.

[The Gawd]

I never understood how people can go for endless pages about a god, telling us everything that it wants and does.......then they say its unfathomable. Do they not see the irony?

[Anfauglir]

'He sometimes "works miracles through men" in a more direct form, for example a faith healer instantaneously cure blindness or cancer or whatever' - yes or no?

Yes. And that should not be surprising to you because of this http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm  The miracle of Jeanna Giese. The plausible explanation given there is coincidence. What co-coincided? Are you at least admitting that something happened here that the medical community can not yet explain?

I haven't even got to that stage yet.  What I'm wondering is whether - given that healings WILL happen - why god and his earthly representatives won't heal amputees.

[zele]

That is about as vague an answer as one could possibly give.  You could have just said "I don't know", eh?

OK I am beginning to pick up a pattern here. And here are the clues I am gathering when something I say challenges your mindset.
... It is vague
... I have lost someone
... I am missing the point
... It is not useful

However, non of the simple questions I have asked here has been given a serious answer by any of the non believers. I'll pose it here in another form.

Your question is not specific, whereas Screwtape's was.  Gease was dying of rabies, and so needed something to help combat the rabies in order to stay alive.  Generally we don't need something to keep us alive, beyond the machinery already in our bodies.

Can you specifically tell me what you mean by 'machinery already in our bodies'? and where did the supposed 'machinery' come from?