Better theological response to "why doesn't God heal amputees?"

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I just finished reading an article about a carpenter who accidentally sawed off his thumb. Thanks to modern science, surgeons were able to graft his toe onto his hand. The carpenter - fortunately - will be able to carry on with his livelihood.

The thought occurred to me of the age-old question of “why doesn’t God heal amputees”? The common, universal response I’ve seen to this question is that it “infringes upon the free will of nonbelievers”. But this makes no theological sense, and seems even against Church teaching if I have understood it properly.

The Church teaches that faith is a theological virtue. In other words, faith is a virtue that comes only from God’s grace. A person can not “develop” faith; faith is construed to be a gift from God. Therefore, even if a person witnessed the greatest miracles, it doesn’t necessarily follow they will have faith in God. Of which must mean that witnessing a great miracle doesn’t infringe upon the free will of a nonbeliever - the nonbeliever will still not believe.

This begs the question of why there is no recorded case of an amputee that has been healed in the modern era. I’m sure there are amputees who have prayed to God for him to physically heal them. I’m not accepting “God answers prayers, but not in the way we expect” because I’m sure that there would at least be one recorded amputee being healed in modern history, even if it means many others will have to make do with emotional healing.

It’s also important to take into consideration that the amputee is not testing God. The amputee desperately wants his/her situation to be resolved, and has placed his trust that God will answer the prayer favourably.

What’s a better theological response? Serious answers only please.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I just finished reading an article about a carpenter who accidentally sawed off his thumb. Thanks to modern science, surgeons were able to graft his toe onto his hand. The carpenter - fortunately - will be able to carry on with his livelihood.

The thought occurred to me of the age-old question of “why doesn’t God heal amputees”? The common, universal response I’ve seen to this question is that it “infringes upon the free will of nonbelievers”. But this makes no theological sense, and seems even against Church teaching if I have understood it properly.

The Church teaches that faith is a theological virtue. In other words, faith is a virtue that comes only from God’s grace. A person can not “develop” faith; faith is construed to be a gift from God. Therefore, even if a person witnessed the greatest miracles, it doesn’t necessarily follow they will have faith in God. Of which must mean that witnessing a great miracle doesn’t infringe upon the free will of a nonbeliever - the nonbeliever will still not believe.

This begs the question of why there is no recorded case of an amputee that has been healed in the modern era. I’m sure there are amputees who have prayed to God for him to physically heal them. I’m not accepting “God answers prayers, but not in the way we expect” because I’m sure that there would at least be one recorded amputee being healed in modern history, even if it means many others will have to make do with emotional healing.

It’s also important to take into consideration that the amputee is not testing God. The amputee desperately wants his/her situation to be resolved, and has placed his trust that God will answer the prayer favourably.

What’s a better theological response? Serious answers only please.

You are reasoning in one side only. The other day my son was telling me of a blind guy who runs with him and who told in TV that blindness was the best thing that would happen to him. Explanation is long. And I know of a guy who is in a wheelchair who said that the best thing for him was the disaster which threw him into that situation, for he found his true love.

I knew a priest who had only one leg and so he started hearing confessions and so spent the whole life praying for his leg and hearing 800 confessions a day. His apostolate was the best for his leg. Everybody loved him and wanted to confess to him.

No, many times it is better that God wont heal the patient, He knows best. Many people have legs and destroy them for bad use.

You have posted the leg problem. Remember that there are 30 thousand ilnesses. So, if you go to Lourdes you will se the case of a man who had cancer of the bones, his bones were completely dissolved and was healed and started walking. There are in Lourdes around 80 proved miracles, which passed through the sieve of a panel of doctors, some of them obligatorily atheists, who proclaim that there is no scientific explanation for the cure.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

You are reasoning in one side only. The other day my son was telling me of a blind guy who runs with him and who told in TV that blindness was the best thing that would happen to him. Explanation is long. And I know of a guy who is in a wheelchair who said that the best thing for him was the disaster which threw him into that situation, for he found his true love.

I knew a priest who had only one leg and so he started hearing confessions and so spent the whole life praying for his leg and hearing 800 confessions a day. His apostolate was the best for his leg. Everybody loved him and wanted to confess to him.

No, many times it is better that God wont heal the patient, He knows best. Many people have legs and destroy them for bad use.

This is merely a case of humans trying to make best of their situation. It’s inbuilt in human nature to make the best of what we have. To claim that God won’t heal the patient as he supposedly knows best is an age-old fallacy dating back to Leibniz called the “best of all possible worlds”. Voltaire mocked Leibniz for such naive worldview in his magnum opus Candide.

You have posted the leg problem. Remember that there are 30 thousand ilnesses. So, if you go to Lourdes you will se the case of a man who had cancer of the bones, his bones were completely dissolved and was healed and started walking. There are in Lourdes around 80 proved miracles, which passed through the sieve of a panel of doctors, some of them obligatorily atheists, who proclaim that there is no scientific explanation for the cure.

You should look into spontaneous remissions; the body does amazing things that science hasn’t achieved in explaining (just yet): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission

To quote the eminent philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Mysteries are not necessarily miracles.”

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

That presupposes God’s existence.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

What I meant when I said “that presupposes God’s existence” is that it’s an argumentative fallacy called “affirming the consequent”. Affirming the consequent is when you make a conclusion from a premise that does not necessarily have to support the conclusion.

Surgeons healed the man indeed, but it does not necessarily follow that God aided the surgeons to heal the man. And even if you propose that God gave the surgeons the intelligence to perform such medical operation and give him credit for that, you would also have to accept that God gave dictators the intelligence to kill the multitudes and give him credit for that as well. Reminds me of the adage, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too”.

As a sidenote, theology doesn’t necessarily assume existence of God. There were many great atheistic theologians: David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Voltaire, and so on and so forth. St. Augustine of Hippo was speaking from a point in history when atheism wasn’t as mainstream as it is today (Scripture only alludes to atheism once).

 

[saveusfromhell]

.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michaeljournal.org%2Fstpio.htm&ei=PdpwToWsFNOWhQfL04S6CQ&usg=AFQjCNHFzQsjepcN6J4y9vu6o5ZuzS1X5g&sig2=G7ef9NGQoLzlD6vWwZExVQ

The eye reappears

More astounding still may be the thoroughly-documented cure of a construction worker named Giovanni Savino, who was severely injured on February 15, 1949, in a dynamite mishap. When Dr. Guglielmo San- guinetti, a physican, and Padre Raffaele, another Capuchin, and Father Dominic Meyer rushed to the injured man’s side, “all three men noted that among Savino’s numerous injuries, his right eye was gone entirely. They agreed that ‘the socket was empty’,” reports biographer Bernard Ruffin. Other doctors confirmed that the eye was completely annihilated and the other one badly damaged.

It looked like Savino was also going to be totally blind. For three days, the worker lay on a hospital bed with his head and face bandaged. When a surgeon entered the room three days later, Savino reported that Padre Pio had visited him — something Savino recognized because he had detected the beautiful aroma so often reported around the priest. A week later, at about one a.m. on February 25, 1949, Savino felt a slap on the right side of his face — the side where the eye was completely gone. “I asked, ‘Who touched me?’” testified Savino. “There was nobody. Again I smelled the aroma of Padre Pio. It was beautiful.”

When later the ophthalmologist — an atheist — came to examine the remaining eye, there was a shock. “To their amazement,” writes Ruffin, “the doctors found that his shattered face was fully healed and covered with new skin. Savino, however, was most delighted at the fact that he could see. ‘I can see you!’ he said excitedly to the eye specialist.”

And indeed, as is medically documented, the doctor saw, to his “utter astonishment”, that Savino had his right eye back. Somehow, the eye had materialized. (“Now I believe too,” exclaimed the doctor, “because of what my own hands have touched!”) As Ruffin notes, it’s one thing when diseases disappear; this is exciting. It’s tremendous to hear of diabetes or arthritis or even cancer leaving a person. “For a missing part of the body to be restored, however, is another matter,” noted the expert biographer.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Yes I am looking for a theological answer. But “God did it” is not a sufficient theological answer; I don’t think it even qualifies as an answer. This would be the same if I was Catholic, Anglican or Mormon.

Again, doesn’t really answer the question, and seems to be a retreat from the bold assertions made by theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas that God is implicitly evident in nature. But thanks for your time anyway; wish you the best in your future endeavours

 

[danserr]

I just finished reading an article about a carpenter who accidentally sawed off his thumb. Thanks to modern science, surgeons were able to graft his toe onto his hand. The carpenter - fortunately - will be able to carry on with his livelihood.

The thought occurred to me of the age-old question of “why doesn’t God heal amputees”? The common, universal response I’ve seen to this question is that it “infringes upon the free will of nonbelievers”. But this makes no theological sense, and seems even against Church teaching if I have understood it properly.

The Church teaches that faith is a theological virtue. In other words, faith is a virtue that comes only from God’s grace. A person can not “develop” faith; faith is construed to be a gift from God. Therefore, even if a person witnessed the greatest miracles, it doesn’t necessarily follow they will have faith in God. Of which must mean that witnessing a great miracle doesn’t infringe upon the free will of a nonbeliever - the nonbeliever will still not believe.

This begs the question of why there is no recorded case of an amputee that has been healed in the modern era. I’m sure there are amputees who have prayed to God for him to physically heal them. I’m not accepting “God answers prayers, but not in the way we expect” because I’m sure that there would at least be one recorded amputee being healed in modern history, even if it means many others will have to make do with emotional healing.

It’s also important to take into consideration that the amputee is not testing God. The amputee desperately wants his/her situation to be resolved, and has placed his trust that God will answer the prayer favourably.

What’s a better theological response? Serious answers only please.

Well, this is just a more specific version of the problem of evil, ie, “why does God let bad things happen?”

I should say first, that I don’t fully know the answer, but I also think for others reasons that the existence of evil does not provide a reason for doubting either the existence or goodness of God. I say this because, I would like to try to offer some answer to your question, but do not necessarily think that my answer will be 1.complete, 2. totally satisfactory, 3. explain all cases of evil in the universe. I just want to suggest some ideas that might help make a little better sense of it. Don’t think I am doing more than I am.

1. In order for free will to mean anything, we need fairly set laws of nature. I need to be able to predict the results of my actions. For instance, I need to know that when I try to insult someone, that the air will accurately carry my words. This requires fairly fixed laws of nature. But these same laws of nature also mean that if my hand slips while working with my saw, then the saw may cut off my hand. This concerns why one is amputated in he first place, not only your question; but it is related since if God simply undid all bad things it might render these laws, and therefore, the nature of our free will, pointless.
2. If God healed every amputee who asked it (or a significant number or even possibly more than a handful), miraculously, this might interfere with people’s free choice to accept God. God might thereby be making His existence too obvious, and just as a woman does not freely marry if she knows that her fiance will kill her if she does not marry him, so too people might not be free to accept God if He made his existence too obvious
3. God healing every amputee would lead to a mistaken conception of God. Prayer is not wish-fulfillment and God not a genie (or a soda machine). Heaven requires that people come into a right (personal) relationship with God, but if God answered every prayer so automatically, first, this would be more like magic than prayer (which is request); second, it might encourage people to follow God for the wrong reasons. They would thus not be standing in right relation to Him and their eternal happiness would be frustrated.
4. Remember, the purpose of life is not happiness, but holiness. Suffering can have spiritual value, and and old spiritual principle is that “no one shall be crowned unless first he has struggled.” Eternal happiness depends on people coming into right relationship with God and recognizing their own insufficiency and dependance on Him. Suffering can help lead people to a greater dependance on God, especially when they realize that God himself also suffered and did not answer his own prayer for deliverance (Father let this cup pass from me) in the affirmative.

• Elie Weisel, who wrote Night tells how the SS hanged two Jewish men and one boy in front of the entire camp. The youth died slowly in torment over a full half-hour. One man behind Elie asked, “where is God?” Elie said "And I heard a voice in myself answer: “where is He? He is here. He is hanging there on the gallows.” The German theologian J. Moltmann said of this: “any other answer would be blasphemy.”

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

I just finished reading an article about a carpenter who accidentally sawed off his thumb. Thanks to modern science, surgeons were able to graft his toe onto his hand. The carpenter - fortunately - will be able to carry on with his livelihood.

The thought occurred to me of the age-old question of “why doesn’t God heal amputees”? The common, universal response I’ve seen to this question is that it “infringes upon the free will of nonbelievers”. But this makes no theological sense, and seems even against Church teaching if I have understood it properly.

The Church teaches that faith is a theological virtue. In other words, faith is a virtue that comes only from God’s grace. A person can not “develop” faith; faith is construed to be a gift from God. Therefore, even if a person witnessed the greatest miracles, it doesn’t necessarily follow they will have faith in God. Of which must mean that witnessing a great miracle doesn’t infringe upon the free will of a nonbeliever - the nonbeliever will still not believe.

This begs the question of why there is no recorded case of an amputee that has been healed in the modern era. I’m sure there are amputees who have prayed to God for him to physically heal them. I’m not accepting “God answers prayers, but not in the way we expect” because I’m sure that there would at least be one recorded amputee being healed in modern history, even if it means many others will have to make do with emotional healing.

It’s also important to take into consideration that the amputee is not testing God. The amputee desperately wants his/her situation to be resolved, and has placed his trust that God will answer the prayer favourably.

What’s a better theological response? Serious answers only please.

… dear bohm ,

… you presume faith is just a gift from god, but faith is the normal modus operandi for all human belief bar one single q we can prove , the gift of faith was part of the preternatural gifts prior to the fall , now fallen man needs a booster shot of faith to believe in god and the things of god and grow in his belief , but in the beginning faith in god was just normal and perfect in all men , you also presume man has free will to do what he likes , but this free will to do good or evil is a punishment from god because adam and eve listened to satan and desired the knowledge of good and evil , in the beginning man only had freedom to do gods will , and man should behave this way still , as to amputees who says god does not fix them , in the end he does , the end is just a figure of speech though , there is no beginning , end or middle — we are in eternity , and in eternity there is just " now " , so when god not only fixes the amputees but all and everything incl this horrible mess we’re in , in this delusion having lost reality , it’s like god fixed all " now " , and no time has passed at all , and it will be like nothing went wrong , god is in " now " and must do all " now " , it only seems a long time to us because of the illusion of time and change that is of necessity to us , so god has already fixed all amputees and all bad problems , the lot, so what are you worried about dear friend , be patient , god has all under control and all will not just be well , in reality all is well , it is just a delusion all the bad things here ,

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[You]

I just finished reading an article about a carpenter who accidentally sawed off his thumb. Thanks to modern science, surgeons were able to graft his toe onto his hand. The carpenter - fortunately - will be able to carry on with his livelihood.

The thought occurred to me of the age-old question of “why doesn’t God heal amputees”? The common, universal response I’ve seen to this question is that it “infringes upon the free will of nonbelievers”. But this makes no theological sense, and seems even against Church teaching if I have understood it properly.

The Church teaches that faith is a theological virtue. In other words, faith is a virtue that comes only from God’s grace. A person can not “develop” faith; faith is construed to be a gift from God. Therefore, even if a person witnessed the greatest miracles, it doesn’t necessarily follow they will have faith in God. Of which must mean that witnessing a great miracle doesn’t infringe upon the free will of a nonbeliever - the nonbeliever will still not believe.

This begs the question of why there is no recorded case of an amputee that has been healed in the modern era. I’m sure there are amputees who have prayed to God for him to physically heal them. I’m not accepting “God answers prayers, but not in the way we expect” because I’m sure that there would at least be one recorded amputee being healed in modern history, even if it means many others will have to make do with emotional healing.

It’s also important to take into consideration that the amputee is not testing God. The amputee desperately wants his/her situation to be resolved, and has placed his trust that God will answer the prayer favourably.

What’s a better theological response? Serious answers only please.

Bohm, I’m sure people have asked this question many times before over the course of the last 2000 years. You would not be the first. There are probably many other more important things people have asked why God did not do, like saving a life or stopping a global war, but these things happen anyway. When they stop happening you will be in heaven. Meanwhile, here on earth, our position is as soldiers on a ‘cosmic/supernatural’ battlefield, a battle between the forces of good and evil of principalities and of powers, and we are all destined to die on this battlefield. We are not so important at all that we are not allowed to fight and suffer and to die.
Occasionally, as in when God was a man He shows Himself through miracles but never for the benefit of the soldier he had healed, he did it for the glory of God. Which seems strange initially, one would think that the human should be healed anyway for purely humanitarian reasons. But recalling that a miracle only for a persons own benefit is, objectively, a much lesser good than doing it for the glory of God. And, because we are in this battle field, there is a war to be won and at different times and places He sees it is the time and place in the battle to baffle the enemy for the glory of God.
On a side note, if someone showed you a photo of a man with two arms and two legs you would not believe he had been an amputee, even if you were shown a before and after photo. There would always be the skeptics muttering photosph0p etc. So you are free now to imagine your disbelief in God when you do hear on the internet of the guy whose amputated leg was miraculously healed.

 

[shoe]

“why doesn’t God heal amputees?”

Who’s to say that God’s in the amputee healing business in the first place? God knows that the spiritual healing of a persons soul is needed for more than the healing of a person’s body parts. Jesus says in Matthew 5:30, “And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.”

 

[Simpleton]

.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.michaeljournal.org%2Fstpio.htm&ei=PdpwToWsFNOWhQfL04S6CQ&usg=AFQjCNHFzQsjepcN6J4y9vu6o5ZuzS1X5g&sig2=G7ef9NGQoLzlD6vWwZExVQ

The eye reappears

More astounding still may be the thoroughly-documented cure of a construction worker named Giovanni Savino, who was severely injured on February 15, 1949, in a dynamite mishap. When Dr. Guglielmo San- guinetti, a physican, and Padre Raffaele, another Capuchin, and Father Dominic Meyer rushed to the injured man’s side, “all three men noted that among Savino’s numerous injuries, his right eye was gone entirely. They agreed that ‘the socket was empty’,” reports biographer Bernard Ruffin. Other doctors confirmed that the eye was completely annihilated and the other one badly damaged.

It looked like Savino was also going to be totally blind. For three days, the worker lay on a hospital bed with his head and face bandaged. When a surgeon entered the room three days later, Savino reported that Padre Pio had visited him — something Savino recognized because he had detected the beautiful aroma so often reported around the priest. A week later, at about one a.m. on February 25, 1949, Savino felt a slap on the right side of his face — the side where the eye was completely gone. “I asked, ‘Who touched me?’” testified Savino. “There was nobody. Again I smelled the aroma of Padre Pio. It was beautiful.”

When later the ophthalmologist — an atheist — came to examine the remaining eye, there was a shock. “To their amazement,” writes Ruffin, “the doctors found that his shattered face was fully healed and covered with new skin. Savino, however, was most delighted at the fact that he could see. ‘I can see you!’ he said excitedly to the eye specialist.”

And indeed, as is medically documented, the doctor saw, to his “utter astonishment”, that Savino had his right eye back. Somehow, the eye had materialized. (“Now I believe too,” exclaimed the doctor, “because of what my own hands have touched!”) As Ruffin notes, it’s one thing when diseases disappear; this is exciting. It’s tremendous to hear of diabetes or arthritis or even cancer leaving a person. “For a missing part of the body to be restored, however, is another matter,” noted the expert biographer.

Looks like God has heald an amputee! Thanks for posting.

 

[tonyrey]

The Church teaches that faith is a theological virtue. In other words, faith is a virtue that comes only from God’s grace. A person can not “develop” faith; faith is construed to be a gift from God. Therefore, even if a person witnessed the greatest miracles, it doesn’t necessarily follow they will have faith in God. Of which must mean that witnessing a great miracle doesn’t infringe upon the free will of a nonbeliever - the nonbeliever will still not believe.

According to that argument we have no choice in the matter - which is absurd. Faith is a gift but like any gift it can be - and often is - rejected. It is the materialist who is faced with the insurmountable problem because all our choices and decisions must have physical causes which are beyond our control. Free will becomes an illusion and so does our power of reason. We believe only what we are compelled to believe as a result of past events.There is no such thing as faith, virtue, vice, innocence, guilt, responsibility or purpose. If only matter exists nothing matters!

 

[PRmerger]

The thought occurred to me of the age-old question of “why doesn’t God heal amputees”? The common, universal response I’ve seen to this question is that it “infringes upon the free will of nonbelievers”. But this makes no theological sense, and seems even against Church teaching if I have understood it properly.

This thread raises the thought in my mind: what would it take to convince an atheist of God’s existence? Would he be convinced by the healing of an amputee?

So I pose the question to you, Bohm: if an amputee were healed, would you then believe in a God?

If so, would you be required to see this person in the flesh, or would reading about it be sufficient?

And if you required actually seeing this person, would you also need some sort of documentation that he actually had had a limb severed? Would you take this amputee’s word for it, or would you require pictures?

And would pictures be sufficient, or would you actually have had to have known this person prior to his miraculous healing?

Serious answers only, please!

 

[Arizona_Mike]

This thread raises the thought in my mind: what would it take to convince an atheist of God’s existence? Would he be convinced by the healing of an amputee?

So I pose the question to you, Bohm: if an amputee were healed, would you then believe in a God?

If so, would you be required to see this person in the flesh, or would reading about it be sufficient?

And if you required actually seeing this person, would you also need some sort of documentation that he actually had had a limb severed? Would you take this amputee’s word for it, or would you require pictures?

And would pictures be sufficient, or would you actually have had to have known this person prior to his miraculous healing?

Serious answers only, please!

Bohm, in another thread you said that you would now no longer believe in God, even if he appeared before you. Would this kind of evidence convince you, or are your new beliefs so ironclad that no evidence could change your mind?

You also mention that no amputations have been cured in modern times. You may have read the other thread on this subject in which a well-documented incident of a cured amputation was described. The possible explanations offered on an atheist apologist site were pretty whacky. So, what constitutes “modern times” in your definition?

Does the miraculous healing of a completely shattered ankle bone count? Charlene Vance’s ankle bones were completely crushed to a pulp in 1986, to the point where there was no firm bone left to attach a pin. After a pilgramage to Medjugorje, it was completely restored. The medical documentation for this is excellent.

Rita Klaus, an former nun who lost her faith and became an atheist, suffered extreme physical deterioration from multiple sclerosis, to the point where her legs were starting to warp and had to wear steel braces attached to her wheelchair. After reading about Medjugorje and praying to the Virgin Mary in 1986, she regained full use of her legs overnight and the warping of the bones in her leg disappeared. She had about 30 years of detailed medical reports describing her condition. The doctors who examined her before and after ther miracle were completely unable to account for the overnight nature of the cure.

The more you read about the nature of the cures at Lourdes, Fatima, and Medjugorje, and the miracles attributed to the intercession of the saints, the more astonishing you realize some of them are. These aren’t people saying their migraines went away, these are cures that are exhaustively researched by medical doctors, many of them atheists, who were completely unable to account for the cures.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

“why doesn’t God heal amputees”?

He has - St. John of Damascus : stjohntyler.org/stjohnofdamascus.html

 

[Poof]

You should look into spontaneous remissions; the body does amazing things that science hasn’t achieved in explaining (just yet): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission

To quote the eminent philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Mysteries are not necessarily miracles.”

Bohm, I like you a lot. You are probably the most decent atheist on this forum. Moreover, you have a really good attitude as well but suggesting spontaneous remission as an explanation for the Lourdes miracles is hilarious.

The following are the criteria used in determining authentic healings at Lourdes:

• The affliction must be a serious disease. If it is not classified as incurable, it must be diagnosed as extremely difficult to cure.
• There must be no improvement in the patient’s condition prior to the visit to the Lourdes shrine.
• Medication that may have been used must have been judged ineffective.
• The cure must be totally complete.
• The cure must be unquestionably definitive and free of all doubt.

Given such strict requirements, do you really think those healings at Lourdes are the product of spontaneous remission? Do you honestly believe that all 68 approved Lourdes miracles are the result of pure luck? Also, take note that these 68 miracles are just a small segment of the many thousands of reported healings at Lourdes, others have yet to be approved as the process is tedious and through. With reasoning like that, I’m interested in what you have to say about Fatima, Padre Pio, Guadalupe and other Catholic miracles & saints.

More information on the approved Lourdes miracles.
miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

This is merely a case of humans trying to make best of their situation. It’s inbuilt in human nature to make the best of what we have. To claim that God won’t heal the patient as he supposedly knows best is an age-old fallacy dating back to Leibniz called the “best of all possible worlds”. Voltaire mocked Leibniz for such naive worldview in his magnum opus Candide.

You should look into spontaneous remissions; the body does amazing things that science hasn’t achieved in explaining (just yet): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission

To quote the eminent philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, “Mysteries are not necessarily miracles.”

1. Well, you and Leibnitz seem to know better what is best for the persons I quoted than they themselves ? Don’t you think you are judging on what you do not know? The first case, he went to the Special Olympics, he is famous and teach a lot on how to overcome one’s own frustration and is a successful manager. Before, he was a spoiled brat (Voltaire would be glad! By the way, Voltaire is THAT important over Leibniz? Why is Leibniz wrong? Only for Voltaire resource to cynism which is the argument of the weak?)
2. Doctors do not go to Wikipedia to know about spontaneous remissions. They study that in University. Besides, they a group of at least University Professors.

I find some people have a fast argument for everything they dislike: “Oh! It is that they ar making the most of their lives”; “Oh! It is a spontaneous remission, I say, no even seeing the patient”.

That ways it is easy. One puts whatever objection comes to one’s mind and the burden of the proof would go to the others.

I supposed that you, at least, would go to Internet studying Lourdes Miracles. But, it seems, you do not need to do that to make your diagnosis.

GBY

 

[Poof]

The possible explanations offered on an atheist apologist site were pretty whacky.

What else is new?

Fatima - Mass hallucination or an encounter with aliens.
Lourdes - Spontaneous remission.
Padre Pio - consistently poured carbolic acid into his hands for 50 years.
Joan of Arc - Schizophrenic.
Guadalupe Tilma - hoax, naturally painted. - this is my personal favorite.

The list goes on and on and on it’s hilarious.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

This thread raises the thought in my mind: what would it take to convince an atheist of God’s existence? Would he be convinced by the healing of an amputee?

So I pose the question to you, Bohm: if an amputee were healed, would you then believe in a God?

I don’t want the amputee to be healed for my benefit. I want the amputee to be healed for his/her benefit.