Don't necro topics like this.
The first link is anecdotal and not particularly believable, especially since it's the equivalent of an op-ed. He talks about how someone "instantaneously" regrew a small piece of his eye after the writer and his prayer circle prayed to God, and then lists a whole lot of anecdotal stories about how people make rather outrageously ridiculous claims about regrowing limbs, such as someone who had no legs, went to buy shoes, and "instantaneously" grew legs, or the person who, if the writer remembers correctly, slowly regrew the missing portion of his right leg over several weeks time. All he has to report is hearsay 'testimony' that he hasn't personally witnessed, and that makes his own testimony suspect.
EDIT: The second link has nothing to do with proving miracles, but instead is all about showing just how unbelievable they are. I apparently mistook satire for actual behavior, which happens every so often. It brings up the supposed Biblical healings of amputees, and other anecdotal stories about healings, which are hardly believable in and of themselves. Imagine if, in two thousand years, we had people believe that we used to play a game called Quiddich, where people fly around on broomsticks and try to fling balls into goals, because it was written about in the Harry Potter books. And then, used fanfiction about Harry Potter as support. That's why bringing up Biblical stories doesn't work.
The third link is a blog entry from a religious pastor which acts as if God is the only one who does any healing, otherwise everyone with the same disease, treated in the same way, would heal the same way. Newsflash - people are not all the same, so why would anyone expect that they would heal the same way? But no. This guy draws the conclusion that healing - all healing - comes from God. And furthermore, tapdances around the issue of healing amputees by claiming that it's the amputation that heals them, and that God makes sure they recover afterward. *shakes head*
The final link is just as bad as the others. First, it attempts to shift the burden of proof, claiming that we can't assume God has never healed amputees. However, this is irrelevant. Until we have empirical evidence showing that human limbs can regenerate, it is not even slightly reasonable to conclude that it might happen and we just aren't aware of it. That's how skepticism works - until someone shows evidence that something actually happens, there is no reason to believe claims they make that it does. Second, it attempts to spin a line about how it isn't God's fault that everyone isn't healed, because we live in a fallen world. But that's attempting to shift the blame. If I make something, and it's messed up, and I'm a good person who cares about my creation, then I would feel obligated to work to fix the problems with what I created. Yet God doesn't do this; instead, he plays hide-and-seek, except with those who already believe in him, which is totally backwards anyway, and lets people suffer nonstop.
The rest of it is the same; attempts to spin things to act like God doesn't have to be responsible or do anything he doesn't want to, and to create excuses why things no longer happen the way they did.
So, "God Exists 11:11", do you have anything more believable than this? Like, say, a medical report of an amputee regenerating a limb? Or did you necro this post in vain?
