Why Does God Not Cure Amputees? (pt 1 of 2)

[tonyrey]

Your irrational demand for* visible***

If you are no more than a mindless body your thoughts are electrical impulses which are incapable of abstraction.

I am, of course, a collection of particles in space, although I am not sure if I am ‘blundering’ through it.

How can **a collection of particles **choose to go in any particular direction?

My progress is not entirely blind, in that I am able to predict results, and observe them. by restricting my expressing of views to those based on observation and replication I am able to minimise the amount of nonsense spouted.

How can **a collection of particles **predict results? It has no insight or understanding.

This is a part of what rationality consists of.

Rationality does not exist in the non-rational world of particles…

 

[wcknight]

THere are not enough miracles of any sort to convince someone who has closed their minds to the possibility of God. Through every century from the time of Christ until now, there have been great miracle workers.

Saints in every century have performed wonders as fantastic as some performed by Christ BUT folks still clamor for the definitive miracle that will convince them personally. No one can determine what that will be because even IF someons would perform this miracle for them, they would be explaining it away as some sort of illusion or trick.

The Jews asked Jesus to perform miracles for them so they too could believe in Him, but He refused because He knew they would still not believe. They said HIs power came from the devil.

There are plenty of miracles throughout history, some of saints bringing someone back from the dead. BUT as Jesus said, even someone coming back from the dead can not convince some folks to believe.

My favorite dead man raising story is from St. Anthony of Padua, his father had been accused of murder and was on trial. St Anthony raised the victim and the dead man sat up and testified that Anthony’s father was innocent. The thing is, St Anthony was miles away enroute, he had bi-located to make this happen.

So if you can’t even believe the testimony of dead men, who can you believe ?

 

[empther]

If a man with no legs were miraculously given legs,

about 250,000,000 amputees, paralytics, cancer patients, and everything else you can think of, would try to get to that man’s location to be cured too.

It would be an unimaginable mess. Mass hysteria beyond any work of fiction.

That’s why God doesn’t perform such miracles.

 

[Hokomai]

[tonyrey;9076582]If you are no more than a mindless body your thoughts are electrical impulses which are incapable of abstraction.

So you think your abstract thoughts with something other than your brain? With your soul? Is this Catholic teaching - that the soul is part of the thinking process?

How can **a collection of particles **choose to go in any particular direction?

Well, speaking as such a collection, I think through the options, and decide. Sometimes I do so on instinct, such as when following another.

How can **a collection of particles **predict results? It has no insight or understanding.

The collection between my ears does. And also, for that matter, the collection between the rather more attractive ears of my dog.

Rationality does not exist in the non-rational world of particles…

This is the sort of assertion one often hears from theists, but I am not at all sure what it means.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If a man with no legs were miraculously given legs,

about 250,000,000 amputees, paralytics, cancer patients, and everything else you can think of, would try to get to that man’s location to be cured too.

It would be an unimaginable mess. Mass hysteria beyond any work of fiction.

That’s why God doesn’t perform such miracles.

Are you serious?

 

[vera_dicere]

Why then are the miracles Jesus performed not of this type? The loaves and fishes, walking on water, water into wine, raising the dead are all in the “growing new limbs” category.

Different time period. Different process.

John 20: 29

"Jesus said to him: “You have seen me, Thomas, so you have beleived. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have beleived”.

 

[samiam1611]

Every now and then I visit an atheist forum. Not long ago atheists raised the old question “Why does God not cure amputees?” and I responded as follows to at least 3 atheists on this forum.

I would appreciate if you let me know what you think.

Well, since you asked…I do not think you did a good job debating.

Here we go with the old amputees argument again!
Now what are amputees?
Man inflicted loss of limbs! Isn’t that what amputate means?
It is a stale argument if one man causes injury or otherwise to another man, why doesn’t God heal the victim/patient.

That’s not the argument.

Why doesn’t God intervene in every piece of suffering?

That’s not the question.

Have you caused suffering to another?

What’s that got to do with anything?

To fix the problem are you suggesting that God removes all those who cause suffering?

They did not suggest that.

The many diseases that are cured miraculously (such as those at Lourdes) are not man inflicted.

This is the first time I’ve heard it suggested that the reason amputees are not ever cured is because (arguably) their condition was man-inflicted. If this is the case, why exactly would that matter to God anyway?

RESPONSE
I haven’t tried that hard and I see you have already had to make a concession on your expectation of God.

By definition, if science can NOT explain how it was cured then
• it was a lucky accident
(which is the atheist explanation of the Big Bang. You and I are the result of an accident)

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

OR
• it was a miracle.

No one tells the amputees that they will grow a limb at Lourdes.
Why do you say that and hide behind such throw away lines?
So do I now assume that a birth defect (which now appeals to mans view of perfection) is your reason for not believing in God?

Uhhh…how’d you come up with that assumption? This isn’t about the atheists anyway. This argument is about God.

To fix the problem are you suggesting that God removes all those who cause suffering?

They did not suggest that.

The atheists are asking you because you are the one who claims/is representing the claim that God exists and God heals some people of their diseases in miraculous ways. You also are representing the claim that God is powerful (i.e. capable of healing amputees) and good (amputation leads to suffering so alleviation of suffering would be the good thing to do).

Vera dicere answered the question adequately in post #3. Your responses consisted mostly of red herring and straw man statements. It would make you a better debator to listen more carefully to what your opponents are saying instead of putting words in their mouths.

 

[Poof]

Through every century from the time of Christ until now, there have been great miracle workers…There are plenty of miracles throughout history…

We know! I, together with other posters on this forum, have posted (several times) irrefutable evidence of miracles that reside in the Catholic faith. However, the OP is now asking for “amputee miracles”. This is just my personal interpretation of things but the only reason this argument continues to be brought up by atheists is because, they believe that somehow, by pointing out that there isn’t a single piece of indisputable evidence for an amputee miracle, it somehow negates our church’s several authentic miracles that have underwent scientific scrutiny. If atheists wish to backpedal (once again) to a position that makes them “more secure” of their beliefs, fine.

 

[Poof]

I listened to a talk by Roy Shoeman (available online), a Jew who converted to Catholicism. At one point he said something like, well in the old days of Exodus God performed those great miracles, it’s a pity that those days are gone. And then he heard of Fatima miracle. He was shocked that he had never heard of it - being non-Catholic it was equally obscure to him as well although still quite recent and very well-documented.

It’s my favorite too . I got my enthusiasm on Fatima from my grade 7 teacher who just loved talking about it.

Or another miracle, one of the many by St Padre Pio. The woman, Gemma di Giorgio, is still alive I believe. She was blind when she was a kid, she was healed, but the thing is that she had no irises in her eyes. She still does not have them yet she sees freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2698893/posts yet you will not really hear of her unless you’re a fan of St Padre Pio or something.

Another well-known miracle but again, it isn’t an “amputee healing”.

 

[Poof]

Atheists clamor for evidence, documentation and authenticity when it comes to miracles but when we do give to them, they’d do anything, ANYTHING, even resort to the wildest of theories or explanations to debunk it because God, simply, cannot exist!

 

[gilbs72]

Faith is essential in healing. JESUS himself always asks the afflicted if indeed he believes he will be healed and afterwards he would even confirm, "Your faith has healed you. "

It is very difficult to truly believe one would grow limbs. It is much much easier to believe that cancer or leprosy or blindness will go away. Possibly not even in over 2000 years did an amputee look at his stump and believe without even the slightest doubt that today he will grow a limb. And as centuries passed with no such cases, the doubt becomes more widespread.

 

[Hokomai]

Atheists clamor for evidence, documentation and authenticity when it comes to miracles but when we do give to them, they’d do anything, ANYTHING, even resort to the wildest of theories or explanations to debunk it because God, simply, cannot exist!

i do not think this is a fair or reasoned characterisation of the usual view of an atheist. I think non-believers generally would be perfectly satisfied with the sort of evidence used to determine whether a drug worked, or how an organism responds to stimulus, or how much strain a piece of metal can take, to establish the fact of what occurred. They would then proceed to examine hypothesis as to how it happened. Following the usual approach, they would take the least complicated reason as being on average most likely. A spontaneous remission of cancer they would therefore attribute to the way the cancer itself happened to develop, rather than any praying going on. They would point to all the other cases in which prayer seems to have had no similar effect. Regrowth of an amputated limb, on the other hand (although it happens in some creatures) has no such simple explanation, and a rational person, atheist or not, would have to look for other explanations, and take seriously the miracle hypothesis. This hypothesis would be strengthened if the regrowth was replicable (i.e., it happened again in similar circumstances. Unfortunately for those who assert there are miracles, the account usually does not get past hearsay, and the fact is never established. Where it is, there is nearly always a more simple natural explanation. Where there is not, the miracle cannot be replicated. This is very weak, even if it could be considered evidence. And given that the hypothesis is that an all-powerful being is doing something to assist us to believe, the likelihood of the hypothesis being correct tends towards zero.

 

[LovePatience]

i do not think this is a fair or reasoned characterisation of the usual view of an atheist. I think non-believers generally would be perfectly satisfied with the sort of evidence used to determine whether a drug worked, or how an organism responds to stimulus, or how much strain a piece of metal can take, to establish the fact of what occurred. They would then proceed to examine hypothesis as to how it happened. Following the usual approach, they would take the least complicated reason as being on average most likely. A spontaneous remission of cancer they would therefore attribute to the way the cancer itself happened to develop, rather than any praying going on. They would point to all the other cases in which prayer seems to have had no similar effect. Regrowth of an amputated limb, on the other hand (although it happens in some creatures) has no such simple explanation, and a rational person, atheist or not, would have to look for other explanations, and take seriously the miracle hypothesis. This hypothesis would be strengthened if the regrowth was replicable (i.e., it happened again in similar circumstances. Unfortunately for those who assert there are miracles, the account usually does not get past hearsay, and the fact is never established. Where it is, there is nearly always a more simple natural explanation. Where there is not, the miracle cannot be replicated. This is very weak, even if it could be considered evidence. And given that the hypothesis is that an all-powerful being is doing something to assist us to believe, the likelihood of the hypothesis being correct tends towards zero.

Atheists tend to ignore miracles. What is the atheist’s response to the Eucharistic miracle with Therese of Neumann? The fact was established.

 

[Hokomai]

Atheists tend to ignore miracles. What is the atheist’s response to the Eucharistic miracle with Therese of Neumann? The fact was established.

Well, I don’t call myself an atheist, but I will probably do until one turns up. The claim, I understand, is that this lady ate nothing but the Eucharist for years and remained alive. How was the fact established, and by whom? remember that to meet the sort of critieria that will impress anyone who is not already a believer, the possibly of fraud must be excluded, along with self-delusion. In testing claims of paranormal phenomenon, skeptics generally try to enlist the support of conjurers, who are wise to the ways people can be led to believe in the unbelievable.

 

[Poof]

Where it is, there is nearly always a more simple natural explanation. Where there is not, the miracle cannot be replicated. This is very weak, even if it could be considered evidence. And given that the hypothesis is that an all-powerful being is doing something to assist us to believe, the likelihood of the hypothesis being correct tends towards zero.

When I said that atheists “resort to the wildest of theories or explanations to debunk a miracle because God, simply, cannot exist!”, I wasn’t joking. When you said there is (nearly) always a more natural explanation for our miracles then you have yet to prove it. I, together with other posters on this forum have given (countless times) hard evidence for the miracles that reside in our faith (and coincidentally, we also happen to be the only religion with numerous well-documented miracles on our side). The response we usually get?, half baked responses that require little or no effort to rebut. Atheists hide behind the banner of reason, yet, they fail to show it when debunking our miracles. Joan was a schizophrenic (If one read about her life, he’d know that such a claim would be impossible), the dancing sun at Fatima was a flying saucer ( this is a popular “natural explanation” for the event by the way) or Padre Pio being a fraud, who continuously poured carbolic acid over the years to fake a stigmata… Where’s the reason? Because I don’t see it. It looks more like a desperate attempt to debunk the supernatural. You say the miracles at Lourdes are spontaneous remissions, when the testimonies and documentation of those healings certainly indicate otherwise.

I’m just curious on how you’d debunk this but how would you explain Padre Pio? Padre Pio was most known for his miracles inside the confessional. He had the gift of soul reading and this led to his immense popularity. How would you explain that off?

 

[wcknight]

For the atheists to be right, there has to an awful lot of collusion and fraud perpetrated by the most holy of God’s servants. The number of great miracle workers is fairly large and every one is recognized as a saint or blessed.

So these ‘saintly’ folks all involved themselves in lies or frauds to further the aims of the Church. I would say, maybe one or two or even a few at most, may have been involved in some sort of scheme. But given the character of most of these saints, I believe there is just far too much evidence that these folks performed the miracles as witnessed by many folks.

There is far more evidence to support the legitimacy of true miracles than there is evidence for any possible murder trial or for any possible court case. IF you were to have that many eyewitnesses, and first hand accounts of events from truly reliable folks, there could be no question that what they say is true. Remember these were saints, who led more than upright lives. They were beyond reproach. Telling a lie or perpetrating a fraud to them was just not possible, given their level of integrity and holiness.

There could be no doubt that miracles happened, and they happened with some regularity. I put my trust in the lives and testimony of the saints. There is no doubt in my mind that what they did were true miracles, not some side show or fraud.

 

[Poof]

For the atheists to be right, there has to an awful lot of collusion and fraud perpetrated by the most holy of God’s servants. The number of great miracle workers is fairly large and every one is recognized as a saint or blessed.

So these ‘saintly’ folks all involved themselves in lies or frauds to further the aims of the Church. I would say, maybe one or two or even a few at most, may have been involved in some sort of scheme. But given the character of most of these saints, I believe there is just far too much evidence that these folks performed the miracles as witnessed by many folks.

EXACTLY! This is one of my favorite arguments!

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Well, I don’t call myself an atheist, but I will probably do until one turns up. The claim, I understand, is that this lady ate nothing but the Eucharist for years and remained alive. How was the fact established, and by whom? remember that to meet the sort of critieria that will impress anyone who is not already a believer, the possibly of fraud must be excluded, along with self-delusion. In testing claims of paranormal phenomenon, skeptics generally try to enlist the support of conjurers, who are wise to the ways people can be led to believe in the unbelievable.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therese_Neumann

It was established among others by a doctor and four nurses who kept watch over her 24 hours a day for an observational period of multiple weeks. During this time she did not suffer from malnutrition nor any other malady.

 

[Hokomai]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therese_Neumann

It was established among others by a doctor and four nurses who kept watch over her 24 hours a day for an observational period of multiple weeks. During this time she did not suffer from malnutrition nor any other malady.

Yes I read that too. I would want better control than that. The procedures are not described. The independence of the witnesses is not established. Remember that the claim is years - not a couple of weeks.

 

[Hokomai]

When I said that atheists “resort to the wildest of theories or explanations to debunk a miracle because God, simply, cannot exist!”, I wasn’t joking. When you said there is (nearly) always a more natural explanation for our miracles then you have yet to prove it. I, together with other posters on this forum have given (countless times) hard evidence for the miracles that reside in our faith (and coincidentally, we also happen to be the only religion with numerous well-documented miracles on our side). The response we usually get?, half baked responses that require little or no effort to rebut. Atheists hide behind the banner of reason, yet, they fail to show it when debunking our miracles. Joan was a schizophrenic (If one read about her life, he’d know that such a claim would be impossible), the dancing sun at Fatima was a flying saucer ( this is a popular “natural explanation” for the event by the way) or Padre Pio being a fraud, who continuously poured carbolic acid over the years to fake a stigmata… Where’s the reason? Because I don’t see it. It looks more like a desperate attempt to debunk the supernatural. You say the miracles at Lourdes are spontaneous remissions, when the testimonies and documentation of those healings certainly indicate otherwise.

I’m just curious on how you’d debunk this but how would you explain Padre Pio? Padre Pio was most known for his miracles inside the confessional. He had the gift of soul reading and this led to his immense popularity. How would you explain that off?

I have never seen a report of anything attributed to Padre Pio that occurred in conditions in which scientific reporting was possible. From what I have read, it is likely he was a very charismatic person, and able to express the intensity of his belief. I do not doubt many people were helped by him. But I have seen nothing I consider requiring the intervention of god(s) to explain. There are plenty of non-Catholics, indeed anti-Catholics who have been similarly popular and had a strong impact on those they met. I am still looking for a properly-observed miracle that is not a thing that happens anyway (like spontaneous remission of cancer).