Old Question -- Any New Answers?

[William_of_Ware]

Because the wiki article itself quite satisfactoril refutes the miraculous claims.

Don’t embarrass yourself further by quoting Wikipedia as a source of authority. Second, do read the posts, since you obviously haven’t, I think Arizona Mike has done a decent job pointing several inconsistencies in the skeptoid account. Third, do read the so-called refutation of calanda so you can see how contradictory the “refutation” is.

 

[fred_conty]

Stevicus that was a fine article you posted.
You did say tho, "Why do evil people seem to get away with it? "
St. Paul mentioned that even out of evil God can bring good.
Have you ever heard of the story of the dad who caught his son smoking a cigar?
He hands the boy another and another until the boy has had enough.

 

[fred_conty]

Getting back to the OP, why doesn’t God cure amputees and other things we know won’t change?

I think the type of healing is called regenerative or regeneration. I’m almost positive that
a miracle of that type happened at Lourdes but it was regeneration of some internal
organ. So it is almost the same.

 

[fred_conty]

Good for you. I don’t even doubt that you actually believe what you say. But your testimonial means nothing to me. Millions of people keep praying to God to alleviate the pain, suffering and misery. They pray with faith in their heart, and nothing happens. Earthquakes keep happening, disasters keep striking, people perish indiscriminately, good people have horrible tiems, really evil people have a great life… does not look like that God CARES.

Now, it is easy to ensure that God will fulfill what you pray for: “pray for something that will happen anyhow”, like pray for warm weather in the summer, and pray for cold weather in the winter… you will get a very good track record of your prayers. But if you pray for something that is not likely to happen anyhow…

I don’t know which planet are you on? Because it cannot be Earth, that is for sure.

Also that is not an excuse. If people cannot provide the help, even when they try (and try very hard) God still does not interfere. Miners are stuck underground, they die a horrible, slow death, their families are suffer. People put all their efforts into a rescue effort, try to save them… and what God does? Nothing.

One evening a talky show had an interview with a famous movie star.
The star was asked how he did such a marvelous job in his last movie.
Especially since this time he protrayed an evil person for the first time.
The star replied, O it’s easy to protray the bad guy. Just do what comes
naturally. Its really hard being the good guy.

I don’t mean this to offend you, but your only doing what comes naturally.

Mother Teresa once was asked, “what good would one loaf of
bread do for a hungry world?” She replied, “at least on person won’t
go to bed hungry tonight.”
When you see someone going to bed hungry, who do you blame for that?
About those miners who were stuck in the mine, did you petition for better
conditions before the event? Or go there and help the families?
People pointing fingers at others, shouldn’t they expect the same?
Or is it time to say “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

I worked for a company, when someone made a suggestion or a
complaint, they were appointed to look into it and often assigned to
correct it.

If God is doing such a bad job, what are you willing to do to make up
for it?

My wife overheard a mother and her little daughter talking.
The mother was correcting the little child.
The child in a disarming way said, “mom, your just a wineny butt.”
End of story.

Now it’s time for the good cop to step in.

 

[razredge]

Don’t embarrass yourself further by quoting Wikipedia as a source of authority. Second, do read the posts, since you obviously haven’t, I think Arizona Mike has done a decent job pointing several inconsistencies in the skeptoid account. Third, do read the so-called refutation of calanda so you can see how contradictory the “refutation” is.

Arizona Mike responded to one of the skeptoid points, he hasn’t responded to the lack of evidence that his leg was ever amputated or that he was ever treated.

And anyway, having only one occurrence of a miraculous regeneration of a limb suggests that it was more likely that the Calanda event was not miraculous - otherwise such miracles would be more frequent.

 

[vz71]

…having only one occurrence of a miraculous regeneration of a limb suggests that it was more likely that the Calanda event was not miraculous - otherwise such miracles would be more frequent.

It makes no sense to consider the infrequency of an occurance evidence of its abscence.

There is only one of you throughout all of human history. Perhaps you are not really there.
Else you would happen more often.

 

[Groucho_Marx]

The OP wasn’t meant to start a debate. I just want to know why there are certain things that prayer will not help, like restoring limbs to amputees.

:hey_bud:
The reason my friend is because prayer is supposed to be used to conform to God’s will and not impose your will on God. This is what Christians believe (or should believe). The belief is that Father knows best so if he healed you it’s because this healing can help your sanctification and if he doesn’t heal you then this is because it too will help with your sanctification. Christians believe God’s will is perfect so when you pray for something such as a raise, a bonus, a new car or a healing then you have to understand that your saying to God “this is what I think i need but is this what I need? If it isn’t then give me the strength to accept your will whatever it maybe”. This is demonstrated by Christ in the Garden when he says “not my will but Thy (The Father) will be done” and when Saint Paul speaks about the thorn in his flesh.

[bibledrb]2 cor 12:7-10[/bibledrb]
**You see God is actually helping paul by leaving him in his present state. The same would be concluded with the amputees. **

 

[Arizona_Mike]

And anyway, having only one occurrence of a miraculous regeneration of a limb suggests that it was more likely that the Calanda event was not miraculous - otherwise such miracles would be more frequent.

So, atheists demand proof of a supernatural miracle. Provided one, they say it doesn’t really count, as it would have to be commonplace to be a “real” miracle.

Am I alone in seeing this as ironic?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I didn’t realize that man still thought that God thinks or considers things like a man. For example,
One day God would think this or consider that…changing his mind from time to time I suppose.
Seeing people and saying…no… your situation is your situation and I’m busy today. Making plans and looking forwards to things so to speak. I find this thread most peculiar.

 

[razredge]

It makes no sense to consider the infrequency of an occurance evidence of its abscence.

It makes perfect sense since it greatly lowers the probability that such events actually occur.

There is only one of you throughout all of human history. Perhaps you are not really there.
Else you would happen more often.

False analogy, there can only be one of me by definition - regenerating limbs are a whole class of events of which there can be more than one instance of.

So, atheists demand proof of a supernatural miracle. Provided one, they say it doesn’t really count, as it would have to be commonplace to be a “real” miracle.

Am I alone in seeing this as ironic?

No, because the ‘proof’ is hardly convincing - it’s not even as convincing as the ‘Miracles’ of Fatima and Lourdes and many Catholics reject those too.

If God regularly heals diseases like cancer, he’d also regularly heal amputees (unless he has some bias against amputees) and so we along with the common claims of miraculous healing of this and that disease we should expect to see a significant number of cases involving limb regeneration - we do not.

 

[razredge]

I didn’t realize that man still thought that God thinks or considers things like a man. For example,
One day God would think this or consider that…changing his mind from time to time I suppose.
Seeing people and saying…no… your situation is your situation and I’m busy today. Making plans and looking forwards to things so to speak. I find this thread most peculiar.

Good point, God isn’t a man and it is blasphemy to portray him as one - most believers seem to think of God as some kind of magic genie or angry, old man in the sky - that’s not God, that’s Zeus.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It makes perfect sense since it greatly lowers the probability that such events actually occur.

False analogy, there can only be one of me by definition - regenerating limbs are a whole class of events of which there can be more than one instance of.

No, because the ‘proof’ is hardly convincing - it’s not even as convincing as the ‘Miracles’ of Fatima and Lourdes and many Catholics reject those too.

If God regularly heals diseases like cancer, he’d also regularly heal amputees (unless he has some bias against amputees) and so we along with the common claims of miraculous healing of this and that disease we should expect to see a significant number of cases involving limb regeneration - we do not.

People with cancer and other serious illnesses go into “spontaneous remission” often enough that, while medical science can’t always explain it, it is accepted by science. The cause could be healing by God, we just can’t say. Unexplained remissions are not generally considered miraculous or supernatural by medical science (although they might be by the individual believer), they are just considered to be unusual events that are caused by a variety of posited factors that can’t be easily explained.

If humans regrew new limbs on infrequent but regular occasions with no medical intervention, medical science would account for the event by revising their knowledge of what is possible within human physiology, and state that “sometimes, for reasons we can’t explain, humans exhibit a salamander-like ability to regrow limbs. We can’t explain it at this time, but we think that at some point, we will be able to through science.” So by your definition, frequent regrowth of limbs would not be considered miraculous, just another of the many aspects of human physiology that are not readily explainable by our current state of scientific knowledge.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I just read something on CAF awhile ago which reminded me of the age-old question, “Why doesn’t God heal amputees?” It got me thinking and googling. Now I know amputees aren’t sick, so that answer won’t cut it. I have yet to read a good answer for this and wondered if anyone here has something that makes sense?

Theres two ways to look at this question:

What is wrong with God, if God heals… whats going on?
What is wrong with man as God has never seen fit to restore-regrow a limb in a miracle?

We know in creation that the biology of life has a potential . The liver can redesign itself very well I understand but cannot be reproduced if removed. Anti-bodies, blood clotting, and all the regenerative capabilities in the present human body make up the restoration potential.

The severed limb ect is simply not at present evolutionary stage of mans development, a regenerative capability optimizing a… potentiality.

My opinion is the miracle of healing is a direct result of acceptance, allowing for acceptance from God in… potentiality, through optimum physical conformity. God then bestows acceptence in some case’s for…acceptence. A mutual conformity effecting the reality of God
in acceptence. Potenciality in the physical is naturally heightened through truth in expressed
disposition.

Its interesting to note that many stories of healing have to do with acceptence, getting on with doing the best you can…cheerfulness and a good positive outlook…

Physical conformity in regrowth of a limb would certainly be outside of design at present human state of existence and therefore logically not subject to…above potenciality in optimum physical conformity.

It may be that one day, a third group of teeth can replace the 2nd group which become decayed. I think this will happen eventually as the idea in replacement already exists and takes
place at a young age.

It wouldn’t be ridiculous for example in say a million years for what man becomes to have an ability such as this as it is contained in nature with frogs and so forth.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I worked for a company, when someone made a suggestion or a
complaint, they were appointed to look into it and often assigned to
correct it.

Reminds me of the quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi. “Be the change you want to see in the world.”

 

[razredge]

The cause could be healing by God, we just can’t say.

Or it could be natural causes that we don’t fully understand? Which is more likely.

If humans regrew new limbs on infrequent but regular occasions with no medical intervention, medical science would account for the event by revising their knowledge of what is possible within human physiology, and state that "sometimes, for reasons we can’t explain, humans exhibit a salamander-like ability to regrow limbs. So by your definition, frequent regrowth of limbs would not be considered miraculous, just another of the many aspects of human physiology that are not readily explainable by our current state of scientific knowledge.

Possibly, but unlikely given that our biology would have to be radically different to allow that to happen and current biological knowledge precludes spontaneous limb regeneration from occurring. This is like saying given resurrection occurring, science would also posit that sometimes humans come back to life for reasons unknown - which of course would be ridiculous.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Or it could be natural causes that we don’t fully understand? Which is more likely.

Possibly, but unlikely given that our biology would have to be radically different to allow that to happen and current biological knowledge precludes spontaneous limb regeneration from occurring. This is like saying given resurrection occurring, science would also posit that sometimes humans come back to life for reasons unknown - which of course would be ridiculous.

Acceptence in ones life from God is the first stage of mysticism. A cheerfulness in charity is
then shared as it is a natural process in appreciation of life.

The interaction between God , man and his fellow man is the grandioso in above noted “natural cause’s”
So I agree in opinion with you razeredge. God healing is a natural.cause with many different forms… in the healing.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Or it could be natural causes that we don’t fully understand? Which is more likely.

Just as I wrote, we can’t easily say if it was an as-yet undiscovered facet of human physiology, nor can we say that it was not the intervention of God. Or, to put it another way, that God is a natural cause that we don’t fully understand. If we don’t have any evidence to point us one way or another in such a case, it doesn’t make sense to ask which is “more likely” - it merely reflects whether you believe in the possibility of an interventionist God, or discount the possibility. Each viewpoint will determine what the speaker thinks is “more likely.”

It is problematic to say “yes, but a reasonable person would say that…”, or “well, which is the more likely?” Since the vast majority of people on the planet are theists, of whom it can be presumed that they accept the possibility of supernatural intervention, and since atheists comprise a relatively small subculture of the planet’s inhabitants, it would be somewhat arrogant to state that everyone else is unreasonable, and only that we, a small subculture if non-believers, hold “reasonable” beliefs. It’s more than a little Gnostic. It’s an even more difficult claim to defend, given the number of recent (secular) studies showing a strong correlation between higher education and religious belief and practice. As theism (which, again, implies a likely belief in the possibility of direct intervention by God) is now linked with increased levels of education, social involvement, mental health, and intelligence, how is it possible to say that only a subcultural belief system which denies the possibility of God can be “reasonable” or “likely”?

Possibly, but unlikely given that our biology would have to be radically different to allow that to happen and current biological knowledge precludes spontaneous limb regeneration from occurring. This is like saying given resurrection occurring, science would also posit that sometimes humans come back to life for reasons unknown - which of course would be ridiculous.

You are exactly right, razredge. So for the instance of regeneration of a limb that we are discussing, it would be nonsensical to call it a “miracle” if it happened on a regular basis, or without some kind of agency. Strictly speaking, if we accept the possibility of the existence of God - which does not conflict with any law of science - such actions as the resurrection of Jesus, or Lazarus, or the regeneration of an amputated leg simply reflect the actions of another Force in the universe, and is explainable. If Jesus was just a man who died and came back from the dead for no reason, or if a man just happened to grow a leg back without prayer, **that **would cause havoc with our understanding of the way the universe works. As it is, it no more conflicts with our knowledge of reality than a hand reaching out to catch a fallen apple conflicts with the law of gravity.

 

[vz71]

It makes perfect sense since it greatly lowers the probability that such events actually occur.

Probability is not being argued. Abscence is.
And frequency or infrequency is not relevent to abscence.

If God regularly heals diseases like cancer, he’d also regularly heal amputees (unless he has some bias against amputees) and so we along with the common claims of miraculous healing of this and that disease we should expect to see a significant number of cases involving limb regeneration - we do not.

And how exactly do you know the decisions God will make?

 

[William_of_Ware]

Arizona Mike responded to one of the skeptoid points, he hasn’t responded to the lack of evidence that his leg was ever amputated or that he was ever treated.

I find your hard-nosed skepticism over Calanda on the one hand and your childlike faith in accepting what the skpteoid says (namely, that there are no records of the leg ever being removed) on the basis of authority most charming and adorable…if you were a 7 year old.

no, razredge. Three surgeons were interrogated (doctor Joan of estanga, D. Miramuello and M. beltran) and they said removed the leg. I will not put the source since you seem to be good at taking the authority of others as proof.

0And anyway, having only one occurrence of a miraculous regeneration of a limb suggests that it was more likely that the Calanda event was not miraculous - otherwise such miracles would be more frequent.

that raises many problems:

how would you know that there has only been one of occurrence of this type? if God exists he does or can perform this sort miracles; on what grounds do you suppose that a necessarily existing God does not or cannot perform miracles of any type?
why do you say that X miracles ought to be more frequent? what is the acceptable ratio, by the way?

Besides, what would constitute as not a miracle in your opinion? if god exists, the universe is contingent and is preserved in being by his volition. You will need a more rigorous definition for miracle.

 

[William_of_Ware]

n
k
k