Why wont' God heal amputees? [#1367]

[tperl]

I sent an email, not knowing that it would be posted to a discussion board, and my every word dismantled and ridiculed.  I fell victim to the exact goal of the ridicule - to make me look foolish because of a quick reaction to a baseless argument. 

I don't think that happened until you started responding directly to the forum with subsequent posts.  

And I honestly don't see the ridicule of which you speak.

[subtleinspiration]

And I honestly don't see the ridicule of which you speak.

He's probably referring to the posts on here of which he has no answer for, and then me calling him more ignorant than the typical theists we get.

Though the problem isn't your position, it's the laughable "evidence" that you try to present as the reason for your position.

[joshperry]

No one is ridiculing you, Josh. The thing is we at this site appreciate science and you have shown to have no understand of it. By us saying you don't understand it is not ridicule; it's an observation. You simply don't understand science, it's as simple as that. You have ignored posts and at one point you have done what I think is insult a member of the forum by saying his education isn't good enough. But the thing is you haven't provide anything to back up what you say, and you have shown a complete lack of knowledge is many different scientific areas.

All you are doing is spewing your own commentary onto this board without anything to help support your claims. You simply cannot back up what you say. End of story.

Since God is neither an entity in the universe nor a mathematical object it is not obvious what kinds of proofs are relevant to God's existence. Even if the concept of scientific proof applied, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God simply demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question. The closest analogy to the existence of God in physics is the theory of quantum mechanics which is paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.  I can't show proof of God, but I can show that God is currently the best theory, especially as science continues to disprove it's own theories time after time.  Remember when the Earth was flat?  Yet with all the scientific revisions throughout history, no one has ever offered any proof that God does not exist.  Probably because that would be impossible, right?  That's why it is called faith and some of us have it and some don't.  As I have stated multiple times, you either accept all of the circumstantial evidence, or you choose to deny the existance of God.

And if you're saying this was not a common occurance, you need to reread all the posts here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

[subtleinspiration]

Since God is neither an entity in the universe nor a mathematical object it is not obvious what kinds of proofs are relevant to God's existence.

Again, we are talking of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, supreme being. That there is not one shred of evidence that such a being exists, we can confidently say that such a being does not exist.

I can't show proof of God, but I can show that God is currently the best theory, especially as science continues to disprove it's own theories time after time.

You have shown nothing of the kind, just typical stuff that we see day in and day out that has been constantly debunked.

Remember when the Earth was flat?

You mean like when the bible told us it was?

Yet with all the scientific revisions throughout history, no one has ever offered any proof that God does not exist.

The "proof" has been staring humanity in the face the whole time. The utter lack of evidence.

Probably because that would be impossible, right?  That's why it is called faith and some of us have it and some don't.  As I have stated multiple times, you either accept all of the circumstantial evidence, or you choose to deny the existance of God.

I've never been one to accept circumstantial evidence.

[Omen]

Most of the replies are ridicule and not debate.

So far you've made some pretty standard first cause arguments that several people have identified errors with, without any response from you.

You've gone on to make some pretty absurd claims about science without any reference material and much of which we have either heard before or know to be absurdly incorrect.  Several people responded to you about that as well, identifying errors and receiving virtually no response from you except to simply make more baseless assertions against them.

I can't help but notice that you seem to want us to ridicule you, since you seem to read ridicule into every response you are given.  Perhaps, it is the fact that we simply don't bow our heads in automatic submission to your every ignorant and arrogant assertion that fuels your paranoid ( and I would suggest psychotic ) perception of us?

[Emily]

I can't show proof of God, but I can show that God is currently the best theory,

I want you to tell me why you think this. Using outside sources that are reliable.

especially as science continues to disprove it's own theories time after time

How so. You don't understand science at all. Science is always learning. Understand the definition of the word theory. Here is a good one

A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/glossary.html


Science is always in a state of learning, dude. That's why it's the BIG BANG THEORY and the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. There are holes, and we have tests to help fill those holes. Just fucking wait, and don't be so eager to throw out science.

Yet with all the scientific revisions throughout history, no one has ever offered any proof that God does not exist.

Of course, it's not possible to do such a thing. But the problem is you lack scientific understanding. No one on this board has said that science has disproven god.  If if has been stated, SHOW ME WHERE.

And if you're saying this was not a common occurance, you need to reread all the posts here:

Show me one post in this thread that you feel applies.

You have no scientific understand, you have no sources to back up your claims, and you are just a PCS who should leave this site because you have nothing to bring to the table that is worth debating.

The closest analogy to the existence of God in physics is the theory of quantum mechanics which is paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.

I always find it interesting when people say this. Please explain, because I happen to study physics. Ok, simply put science cannot prove or disprove god. But science has shown the earth to be a hell lot older than 6k years.

[velkyn]

No one is ridiculing you, Josh. The thing is we at this site appreciate science and you have shown to have no understand of it. By us saying you don't understand it is not ridicule; it's an observation. You simply don't understand science, it's as simple as that. You have ignored posts and at one point you have done what I think is insult a member of the forum by saying his education isn't good enough. But the thing is you haven't provide anything to back up what you say, and you have shown a complete lack of knowledge is many different scientific areas.

All you are doing is spewing your own commentary onto this board without anything to help support your claims. You simply cannot back up what you say. End of story.

Since God is neither an entity in the universe nor a mathematical object it is not obvious what kinds of proofs are relevant to God's existence. Even if the concept of scientific proof applied, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God simply demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question. The closest analogy to the existence of God in physics is the theory of quantum mechanics which is paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.  I can't show proof of God, but I can show that God is currently the best theory, especially as science continues to disprove it's own theories time after time.  Remember when the Earth was flat?  Yet with all the scientific revisions throughout history, no one has ever offered any proof that God does not exist.  Probably because that would be impossible, right?  That's why it is called faith and some of us have it and some don't.  As I have stated multiple times, you either accept all of the circumstantial evidence, or you choose to deny the existance of God.

And if you're saying this was not a common occurance, you need to reread all the posts here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

You obviously have no idea what the word theory means when applied to science.  YOu should really look that up before gaining more ridicule.  Theories are only disproved if there is evidence that shows the current theory is wrong.  That's what science is, and that's what you accept when it's convenient for you.  The earth was never flat by the way.  Anyone who observed the world rather than listening to holy men could see that.  A ship leaving port will leave site in a way only possible on a sphere. 

There is plenty of evidence that God doesn't exist.  God doesn't fulfill its promises.  There is no evidence of God doing anything in this world.  No magical healings that are supported by evidence that the Christian God did it.  No magically held back mud floods that God is holding back from drowning children, nothing.

Oh, and before you reply that atheists would never believe *any* evidence given to them, let me stop you.  That isn't true.  Have a burning bush talk to me, and I'll seriously reconsider my lack of belief.  Have God carve his name on the Moon.  Your God is omnipotent and omniscient so it should know exactly what it would take to convince me.  I've even asked for such things myself, just like Thomas, and what do I get? Bupkis. 

As for faith, for a person who claims that God only wants faith, you sure are desperate for proof.  If God only wanted faith, he's have appeared once, said
"believe in me and you get eternal life" and then disappear.  But he didn't.  He performed miracle after miracle.  Even Jesus said that one should believe in the miracles if one can't just believe in him.  So much for your excuses for God. 

[Irish]

Josh,

Emily's post... this one:

No one is ridiculing you, Josh. The thing is we at this site appreciate science and you have shown to have no understand of it. By us saying you don't understand it is not ridicule; it's an observation. You simply don't understand science, it's as simple as that. You have ignored posts and at one point you have done what I think is insult a member of the forum by saying his education isn't good enough. But the thing is you haven't provide anything to back up what you say, and you have shown a complete lack of knowledge is many different scientific areas.

All you are doing is spewing your own commentary onto this board without anything to help support your claims. You simply cannot back up what you say. End of story.

has nothing to do with God.  You responded about a religion proving this and God that, and proof blah... when she isn't even talking about anything religious.  She is stating what we have all observed from you and that is the fact that you do not understand scientific concepts in various fields.  That is not ridicule but merely an observation.  If someone told me that I do not understand the culture of the ancient Japanese people that would not be ridiculing me but making a statement based on observation that is completely correct.

You stated faulty scientific reasoning, definitions, and other comments with no scientific backing.  When one of us pointed out a flaw in your assertions, that they do not hold when scientific reasoning is applied, you starting claiming we were ridiculing you and ran away without addressing the points we made.

Basically the above comment by Emily has nothing to do with religion but spells out perfectly well what we are trying to get across to you.  Each one of us on this site has a love of science.  Some, like myself, are involved in it personally.  Others are not involved in a personal level but still love the findings and still put forth the effort to learn about scientific concepts by reading scientific books, websites, blogs, and journals.

On a more personal level I did not take it as an insult when you took cheap shots at me stating (in a basic sense) that my education was not good enough and demanding that I should go read a biochemistry book.  I did not take it personally but took it more as a joke that you, without understanding anything that anybody has posted up, would try and tell me what to learn.  My offer still stands.  If you ever want to get around to talking about biology/biochemistry/chemistry I am here and waiting.  The last time I made this statement you offered crass and rude remarks directed towards me.

[Ambassador Pony]

It's lonely out here on the edge of the universe.