Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2013, 01:46 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2013 01:59 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
I guess its too late to change the OP.
"Why does god not perform miracles that can be documented in the modern social network age."
All we have learnt with better technology and record keeping + social media is that. Faith healing is a scam.

More and more youtube videos exposing the bullshit.
Nothing to suggest its remotely possible.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 02:00 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(04-11-2013 01:46 AM)sporehux Wrote:  I guess its too late to change the OP.
"Why does god not perform miracles that can be documented in the modern social network age.

The thing about miracles is if they happen often enough, they no longer are miracles.

If once a day some amputee woke up with a regenerated limb, that wouldn't be a miracle....it would be an everyday occurrence.

I don't believe God works miracles like healing amputees, but if I did, I'd never expect to see one for the same reason I never expect to see a supernova with my naked eye.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 02:29 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(04-11-2013 01:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 11:24 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Now if only god healed amputees as often as he blew up stars and created black holes, we might have some compelling evidence. Maybe...

I think where your thinking goes wrong is you fail to account that there are many many many many more stars then there are human beings. If the universe contained the same number of stars as human beings, then you might see a supernova every 600-700 years. If God healed amputees at the same rate as He blew up stars we should see one amputee healed every 600-700 years.....since it was recorded that one amputee was healed about 400 years ago...we are not due to see another amputee healed for about 300 years or so.

Actually....my thinking above is in error because not all humans are amputees. If God healed amputees at the same rate as He blows up stars we shouldn't really expect to see one in the entirety of human history.


Then my next question is: Why did god make a universe filled with far more stars, if WE were made in HIS image? Tongue


Maybe your god is really just a star? Consider


Maybe the REAL god of the universe is a black hole, as the universe appears to be perfectly balanced to create THEM and not US? Laughat

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
04-11-2013, 02:42 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(04-11-2013 01:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 01:43 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Biggest gaff of the bible. God took days to do a few things on earth but only a second to create trillions of other stars and planets.

When you have always existed, there isn't much difference between a second, a day, or a trillion years. Its all pretty much an instant.

And so you go to the trouble of creating this whole mind-bending array of stuff for these random ape-descendants who're gonna be around for less than an eyeblink in *your* perception of time, and you write a trashy novel for them too.

God sure works in mysterious ways.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
04-11-2013, 03:10 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(04-11-2013 02:42 AM)morondog Wrote:  And so you go to the trouble of creating this whole mind-bending array of stuff for these random ape-descendants who're gonna be around for less than an eyeblink in *your* perception of time, and you write a trashy novel for them too.

God sure works in mysterious ways.

Nothing is easy or hard for an omnipotent being. Creating all this stuff required just as much effort on God's part as creating one grain of sand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 03:17 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(04-11-2013 03:10 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-11-2013 02:42 AM)morondog Wrote:  And so you go to the trouble of creating this whole mind-bending array of stuff for these random ape-descendants who're gonna be around for less than an eyeblink in *your* perception of time, and you write a trashy novel for them too.

God sure works in mysterious ways.

Nothing is easy or hard for an omnipotent being. Creating all this stuff required just as much effort on God's part as creating one grain of sand.

Do fundies think sand was created as well ? FfS

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
04-11-2013, 03:27 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(04-11-2013 03:10 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Nothing is easy or hard for an omnipotent being. Creating all this stuff required just as much effort on God's part as creating one grain of sand.

True, for an omnipotent being, if one existed. But coming up with a coherent story that stood up to scientific scrutiny thousands of years later? Now that was too hard for the fallible and mortal creators of these ancient fables.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2013, 04:24 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(04-11-2013 03:10 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Nothing is easy or hard for an omnipotent being. Creating all this stuff required just as much effort on God's part as creating one grain of sand.

Funny how you guys seem to know so much about this joker who's totally invisible and plays Chinese whispers to make his will known...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
04-11-2013, 11:36 AM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(01-11-2013 03:13 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There are indeed several senses in which the word evidence is used. You, facetiously, skip merrily from one to the next when it suits you, without acknowledging so.

Perhaps you can show an example of what you are talking about.

There's the difference between 'evidence' as consisting of the claim itself and 'evidence' as things which would corroborate the claim, which you go on to interchange in this very post. So there's that.

(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  No...my logic is and always has been this:

A claim is made. It is supported by circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence doesn't go away when the refutation introduces new "facts".

Yeah. That's not logic.
(and it's particularly facetious to keep saying "facts", but never mind that for now)

You can't refute my claim about aliens building Baalbek without introducing new "facts". So there's that.

(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You are conflating the claim with the evidence.

No, I was responding to your treating them as the same thing.

(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The claim is "God heals(or has healed) amputees". The evidence is a historical record of God healing an amputee.

BZZZT. 'Evidence', eh?

(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Now you and others can dismiss that record but only by adding in new "facts" to the historical account.

"Facts". Yes. "Facts" like there's no 'evidence' besides post-hoc eyewitness testimony by people who want to believe. Yes. "Facts".

Your position remains the same:
"If it is not self-refuting then it must be taken as reliable".

That's nonsensical. But, uh, carry on, I guess.

(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  "There is no documentation or witness accounts confirming his leg was ever gone.

Which is true.

(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  "But what about all those witnesses who knew him with one leg?"

They don't confirm anything.

Because eyewitness testimony (especially at great temporal remove) is, to use the legal term, shit.

I... wouldn't have thought that a hard hurdle to clear. Apparently you're having trouble with it.

(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  "Allow me to offer an alternative version of what might have happened, that requires no miraculous intervention, and is still consistent with all the documentary evidence we have."

And then Dunning goes on to make a bunch of stuff up in order to make the historical account consistent with his world view. He is basically claims that since everyone got duped by this guy(something Dunning makes up) into thinking he only had one leg, there really is no documentation or witness accounts confirming his leg was ever gone.

This statement from Dunning is laughable

Something here is, and it ain't Dunning.

(protip: it's you)

(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  "We have evidence that he was admitted to the hospital in Valencia with his uncle. We have notarized first-hand statements that a scar was visible on his leg where he had been injured by the mule cart. We have numerous statements that he was well known in Zaragoza as a one-legged beggar. All the evidence supports Pellicer being a beggar with a popular and time-honored gimmick who was caught, not with his hand in the cookie jar, but with his feet out of the blanket. It is only through the introduction of a new assumption, that of the existence of unprecedented supernatural intervention, can the alternate explanation of a miraculous restoration be found consistent with this same evidence. This is where Occam's Razor comes into play: The most likely explanation is the one that requires the fewest new assumptions."

Its laughable because Dunning himself is introducing a new assumption...that assumption is Pellicer was scamming people with a beggars gimmick.

Which, y'know, is an actual thing done by actual people which actually happens. So right away the possibility must be accounted for. And it is a far more likely possibility. How likely is divine intervention? And remember that we cannot use this event to prove the occurance of such intervention and then use the occurance of such intervention to explain this case. That's ludicrously circular, but I wouldn't put it past you.

So your demented "the source doesn't say he was faking it therefore he wasn't faking it" posture is just that.

If a historical source claims X, and no historical source claims not-X, are we supposed to assume X is true? Does this constitute 'evidence'?

Apparently, according to you.

Which brings me back to Blemmyes and Vegetable Lambs. The sources claiming them to exist (and claiming eyewitness encounters) are not countered by contemporary sources. Let's apply your 'logic'.

Well, shucks! I guess they're real. Because to draw any other conclusion would be 'introducing' external "facts" in order to suit our preconceived ideas.

Why aren't there any around now? Well, shucks again! I guess they just stopped being a thing in the last 400 years.

Just like divine regrowth of amputated limbs.

(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Perhaps you or Dunning or someone on this forum can explain away the historical account that God healed an amputee without introducing new assumptions or "facts".

Perhaps you can explain away why the single best account (your description) is so uncompelling. Or perhaps you can explain away the observation that this has stopped happening (tellingly your 'best' account is three hundred years old)?

Or perhaps you can explain why you are so fixated on the validity of this nonsensical account, despite having affirmed several times that you don't believe it either?

(01-11-2013 09:15 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If you can't then why should a theist who accepts this account on its face because it is consistent with their world view believe you when you say it didn't happen?

I know, right?

Why should anyone ever let rational inquiry inform their credulity?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
04-11-2013, 06:04 PM
RE: Why wont prayer heal amputees ?
So Heywood, let me put it this way:
I walk down the streets of Phnom Penh and see a one-legged beggar. I see the same beggar outside of their house the next day with two legs. They tell me "It's a miracle!". So that's evidence of a miracle.
I walk down the same street and find another beggar. I catch them the next morning also. This new miracle correlates with the original miracle. In fact, I could repeat this all week and have dozens of first hand accounts of miraculous one-legged to two-legged conversions, praise the Lord.

So when I describe these events to my friend:
a. Am I providing evidence of miracles, that anyone who is predisposed to believe in miracles can and should accept as supporting their world view?
b. Is the sceptic who asks "Did you check whether their legs were simply bound?" introducing new "facts" to the account that should carry less weight the evidence I provided? Should the weight these new "facts" carry for various listeners depend on their world view?

When someone points out that a miraculous account of a one-legged to two-legged conversion lacks evidence that the leg was amputated in the first place, they aren't introducing new facts. They are examining the quality of the evidence being presented. The evidence in this case, even in plural, even with a world view predisposed to accept that miracles can and do occur... would seem lacking.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: