God can't heal amputees right now because God is a collaboration. God is greater than we are because he is composed of those that let him live through their lives. Healing takes a strong focused attentive belief, especially from the person being healed. The people more that believe in the success of the healing, the more likely that the healing will take place. God can heal all wounds, including amputations, but to heal all wounds and take away all bad things requires the universal (meaning everyone must take part) belief in God.
Let me get this straight: God needs the belief of billions of people in order to do some grand miracle like curing disease for everyone on Earth, correct?
Yet a 'miracle' of much grander scope, the creation of not only Earth, but the sun, the rest of the solar system, and the rest of the universe was accomplished without the support of any believers? Remember, we didn't exist when God started his creation efforts!
You can't have it both ways.
Isn't a cancer cell a rogue cell? How does a cell go rogue? What is the difference between a cell that has been exposed to carcinogens and develops cancer, one that has been exposed to carcinogens and doesnt develop cancer, and one that is not exposed to carcinogens and develops cancer?
There are numerous ways for a cancerous cell to come into being. When cells replicate, the DNA needs to be copied. This is not a flawless process, so spontaneous errors can arise, some of which result in a cancerous cell. Other causes can be radiation from a number of sources and carcinogenic substances. When you consider just how many cells there are in a human body, there are a great many opportunities for this situation to arise. Of course, once a single cancerous cell arises, it tends to multiply rapidly, as this is the very nature of cancer.
Science can't explain it right now and may never be able to completely explain it.
This is only true if you mean that science can't explain with 100% certainty the origin of every cancer case in existence. If someone smokes a pack of cigarettes every day for 40 years and then develops lung cancer, you might be inclined to blame the smoking for it, but it's possible that the smoking is not the cause. After all, people who do not smoke develop lung cancer as well, so in the smoker, it could have been a genetic predisposition, a fluke, radiation from abusing the X-ray machine in med school, asbestos fibers, or any number of other causes.
The fact that it's uncertain does not lend credence to your idea of cells having free will (haha, that was a good one) or God existing.
We know for a fact that stress supresses immune response and getting a good night sleep, eating a healthy diet, and moderate activity help humans to resist disease. It is isn't that difficult to see that when we treat our bodies with respect, they respond in a positive manner.
This has to do with meeting our biological needs, and nothing to do with 'free will' of our cells.
Tell me, if I have two bars of metal, and bend one back and forth multiple times until it is cracking while leaving the second one alone, are the molecules in the non-stressed bar 'thanking' me by still having strong bonds? Your line of reasoning here is just laughable.
I found mapping out where I obtained my morals from to be a very difficult undertaking.
That's you. The fact that you found it difficult does not support your belief in God. I'm bad with directions, but this doesn't mean that God is guiding all the cabbies and bus drivers in the world.
I concluded that at the foundation was "the golden rule." I wondered if this is something that we are taught or something that we are born with. After contemplating it for weeks, I determined that we are born with this principle and we are taught behaviors that are contrary to it. I have heard the arguements that this is a result of evolution, in that we would not survive as a species if we did not posess this principle. I disagree. I find that it is the lack of this very principle that puts our species (and others) at risk for extinction.
First you suggest the golden rule, then say you're aware of the arguments of how this altruism is beneficial from an evolutionary perspective, and then say that you disagree because we'd be at risk for extinction without it. Huh?
If it's beneficial to the survival of the species, then that is
perfectly consistent with evolution (or more precisely, natural selection). As a beneficial trait, it would tend to be propagated through the gene pool. How you use this to
disagree with a natural basis for this trait and instead ascribe it a supernatural origin is beyond me.
