Does God hate amputees?

[Left Coast]

No. There are events to which I would say, if it did happen, so what?

Oh. Well it sounds like we agree, then. The primary question is: so what? If an event's occurrence is irrelevant, then whether it happened is very much secondary.

 

[ppp]

Oh. Well it sounds like we agree, then. The primary question is: so what? If an event's occurrence is irrelevant, then whether it happened is very much secondary.

I was going to disagree, but on reflection, you are correct. It only matters (to me) if the answer is something I value or impacts something that I value.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yet another wall of text from you.

I can't help it. Once I consider a question, I have to just let it all out.

 

[danieldemol]

I'm not sure I follow. God is said to be all-knowing and all-powerful, so therefore...no one could ever ask God to produce another miracle, even if many others have been provided? Even if such a request were unreasonable? Is that what you're saying?

No, I'm trying to say that if God intervenes in the material realm God should be able to cover all required miracles through God's knowledge and power so their shouldn't be another case where God has failed to provide a miracle such that we could look at it and say, "why not this?" In my opinion.

 

[Left Coast]

No, I'm trying to say that if God intervenes in the material realm God should be able to cover all required miracles through God's knowledge and power so their shouldn't be another case where God has failed to provide a miracle such that we could look at it and say, "why not this?" In my opinion.

What miracles are "required?"

This seems like a way of just saying that if God exists, no one would ever unreasonably ask for more miracles than are necessary to believe. Or to follow the logic further, that if God exists, there would be no atheists. Is that really what you think?

 

[danieldemol]

What miracles are "required?"

All miracles that would prevent or end suffering for starters.

This seems like a way of just saying that if God exists, no one would ever unreasonably ask for more miracles than are necessary to believe. Or to follow the logic further, that if God exists, there would be no atheists. Is that really what you think?

Why would unreasonableness exist if God could miraculously zap it away or better yet miraculously prevent it coming into existence in the first place by blessing us all with reasonable natures?

 

[1213]

Do you believe God can miraculously heal people?

I believe God can heal, or keep one healthy.

 

[Left Coast]

All miracles that would prevent or end suffering for starters.

Why would unreasonableness exist if God could miraculously zap it away or better yet miraculously prevent it coming into existence in the first place by blessing us all with reasonable natures?

Ah okay. So in your mind, if God exists, there would neither be any suffering nor any atheists!

Why might God not magically prevent all suffering? Why allow people to be unreasonable and not just force their compliance through mind control instead? Good questions to ponder.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Here's how I explain it.

1) God is perfect, nothing else is perfect.

2) The created world is not perfect. It is inherently flawed and is inherently chaotic.

3) Illness, birth defects, events causing catastrophic physical trauma are all inevitable consequences of the existence of an imperfect created existence. Removing or stifling this imperfection would result in all of creation collapsing like a bubble popping in an ocean. God could do this, but it is not desirable.

4) God has provided tools, methods, etc, for coping with these flaws and flipping the flaws into benefits.

5) Innocents who suffer as a result of the inevitable consequence of existing in a flawed reality will be rewarded in an afterlife and will realize that the suffering was for a good purpose and that the suffering was temporary.

6) The most reliable method for communion with God is through faith which is compromised by knowledge.

7) Open miracles in the form of amputees regrowing limbs compromises the opportunity for communion through faith.

So the knowledge that miracles can actually happen would compromise knowing God through faith. Why can't we commune with God after we know he actually exists?

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

This took 5 minutes on Google:

Miracle of Calanda - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

To be clear, this is my first time hearing of this miracle. So I don't know how strong the evidence for it is. I suspect if I took more time, I'd find more examples.

However, nonbelievers can always claim that some natural process is at work that would explain any confirmed, would-be miracle. So we'd hear this even if we had an undeniable example of a regrown limb.

They can also always say, "but why not THIS?" and point to some other thing they've never seen before, no matter how many seemingly miraculous events they are presented with.

So...is this actually about amputees? Or is it about something else?

The story you referred to is just that, a story. If healing miracles happen today, there should be at least one contemporary example of an amputee gaining back a limb. We can actually properly document and test such stories.

 

[dybmh]

So the knowledge that miracles can actually happen would compromise knowing God through faith. Why can't we commune with God after we know he actually exists?

"knowing God through faith" does not compute for me. Those two concepts contradict. If it is known, it is not faith, it's science. And to be clear, I didn't say communion can't happen in other ways, I said it is most reliable through faith.

 

[Left Coast]

The story you referred to is just that, a story. If healing miracles happen today, there should be at least one contemporary example of an amputee gaining back a limb. We can actually properly document and test such stories.

This doesn't really respond to the actual points I made. Whether that particular event is legit is a secondary question. See my prior posts.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

If God were to heal an amputee that would be direct evidence of His existence thereby eliminating freewill for people to choose because everyone would simply believe in Him at that point.

He also probably uses these situations for some other plans He has going on.

Another thing is that God isn't on demand, we can't simply pray for it and receive whatever we want. Prayer is the method we use to build a relationship with God, not to simply ask for stuff.

The final thing is that God says we will be healed in Heaven, not here on Earth. We only exist here for a very, very short amount of time, the only thing God cares about is our belief in Him.

I'd rather have evidence of Gods existence before I freely choose to worship him. Indeed, he might have some plans that would require him to hate amputees. I'm not saying God heals everyone who asks, I'm saying that if God miraculously heals some people sometimes, then it follows that some amputees would be healed sometimes, and yet they do not.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

God can only affect the material dynamic by entering the simulation through a quantum observer-participant using either the 6th sense or some other means.

To every other member: Beware this poster. They challenge the divine using deception as a tool. I've come across such in the past. Evil takes many forms. But it is contrasted with good as a necessity. The diabolical underpins the divine.

dang, you caught me. time to make a new profile.
*turns into a bat and flies away*

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

I'm not sure I follow. God is said to be all-knowing and all-powerful, so therefore...no one could ever ask God to produce another miracle, even if many others have been provided? Even if such a request were unreasonable? Is that what you're saying?

no, I'm saying if one believes that god can miraculously heal people, then one would expect to see an example of an amputee being healed. e.g. If there were 10,000 real accounts of divine healing, one might expect to see at least 1 case of an amputee being healed

 

[Left Coast]

no, I'm saying if one believes that god can miraculously heal people, then one would expect to see an example of an amputee being healed. e.g. If there were 10,000 real accounts of divine healing, one might expect to see at least 1 case of an amputee being healed

You're responding to a post that wasn't directed towards you there.

Where did you come up with 1/10,000? How extensive a search have you done? Are you saying that if someone were to present you with incontrovertible proof that someone's limb has regrown, you'd believe in God and miracles?

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

This doesn't really respond to the actual points I made. Whether that particular event is legit is a secondary question. See my prior posts.

This took 5 minutes on Google:

Miracle of Calanda - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

To be clear, this is my first time hearing of this miracle. So I don't know how strong the evidence for it is. I suspect if I took more time, I'd find more examples.

However, nonbelievers can always claim that some natural process is at work that would explain any confirmed, would-be miracle. So we'd hear this even if we had an undeniable example of a regrown limb.

They can also always say, "but why not THIS?" and point to some other thing they've never seen before, no matter how many seemingly miraculous events they are presented with.

So...is this actually about amputees? Or is it about something else?

I could not claim such healing came about naturally, which is why I picked this example. Nor would I change the subject if presented with said evidence

 

[Left Coast]

I could not claim such healing came about naturally, which is why I picked this example. Nor would I change the subject if presented with said evidence

Good to know! Are there other miracles that would convince you too, or just that one?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I'd rather have evidence of Gods existence before I freely choose to worship him. Indeed, he might have some plans that would require him to hate amputees. I'm not saying God heals everyone who asks, I'm saying that if God miraculously heals some people sometimes, then it follows that some amputees would be healed sometimes, and yet they do not.

Jesus healed to make a point that He was God, something the people needed convincing of. It wasn't to actually heal the person to make them better it was to show that God had actual power.

It was recorded and passed on so there is no reason for God to keep on doing it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'd rather have evidence of Gods existence before I freely choose to worship him. Indeed, he might have some plans that would require him to hate amputees. I'm not saying God heals everyone who asks, I'm saying that if God miraculously heals some people sometimes, then it follows that some amputees would be healed sometimes, and yet they do not.

Why would God heal some amputees and not others? That would not be fair. Of course the same could be said about God healing some cancers and not others, etc., etc. etc.