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

[StrawberryJam]

Mainstream scientific journals are not in the business of authenticating miracle claims, so it is unreasonable to expect to find evidence in them.

There are, however, plenty of other resources. Many miracles have been carefully and rigorously investigated by people with impeccable scientific credentials, and the documentation is out there for those who care to look at it.

Most people don’t care to look at it, though. Most people manage their lives in a way that enables them to avoid confronting things that threaten the comfort zone they have created in their own beliefs. Skeptics are fond of saying such things about the religious, but of course the reality is that we are all this way. There are no exceptions. So if the question is, Why haven’t more people been convinced by the evidence concerning miracles?, the answer is: Some have been convinced, but most do everything in their power to avoid giving that evidence a fair hearing.

Taking myself as a case in point, you’ll see that I’m “unchurched.” That means I’m unbaptized and not formally a part of any religious tradition or denomination. I’ve vacillated between atheism and agnosticism for most of my life (I’m nearly 60). In the recent past, I decided to force myself to take a fresh look at things. As a result, I’ve changed my position on the existence of God, at least. I think the evidence for God is reasonably strong, though not overwhelming. In the process of all this, I’ve also researched miracles, and I’ve come away from that research with the conviction that some reported miracles are the real thing.

Why did it take me so long? It’s simply because it was very, very easy for me to set a very low standard of acceptance for any skeptical claim, and a very high standard for any miracle or theistic claim.

Which high standards passed or did not pass your filter system?

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I do not know how the brain works. I read scientific investigation of it avidly. Just because i do not know how something works, I am not justified in creating god(s) to fill in the gaps in my knowledge.

Gotta love IOU materialism. Person A: “All my beliefs are based on solid evidence.” Person B: “But this isn’t.” A: “But when the evidence comes in it will be, and anyway my inability to support my claims to my own proclaimed standards don’t prove your claims meet them.” A:"What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

 

[Hokomai]

Gotta love IOU materialism. Person A: “All my beliefs are based on solid evidence.” Person B: “But this isn’t.” A: “But when the evidence comes in it will be, and anyway my inability to support my claims to my own proclaimed standards don’t prove your claims meet them.” A:"What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

Sorry, you have lost me. Why not discuss, instead of writing analogue narratives?

 

[tonyrey]

I do not know how the brain works. I read scientific investigation of it avidly. Just because i do not know how something works, I am not justified in creating god(s) to fill in the gaps in my knowledge.

But you are justified in rejecting the ludicrous and irrational assumption that persons, goodness, freedom, justice, and love are produced by impersonal particles which have no insight, conscience, freedom, purpose or capacity for love…

 

[Hokomai]

But you are justified in rejecting the ludicrous and irrational assumption that persons, goodness, freedom, justice, and love are produced by impersonal particles which have no insight, conscience, freedom, purpose or capacity for love…

I am not sure about that. What is it about impersonal particles that means this is impossible?

 

[tonyrey]

But you are justified in rejecting the ludicrous and irrational assumption that persons, goodness, freedom, justice, and love are produced by impersonal particles which have no insight, conscience, freedom, purpose or capacity for love…

The fact that they** lack** insight, conscience, freedom, purpose or capacity for love. I shall be enthralled if you can explain how particles have become persons…

 

[LJH_80]

Gotta love IOU materialism. Person A: “All my beliefs are based on solid evidence.” Person B: “But this isn’t.” A: “But when the evidence comes in it will be, and anyway my inability to support my claims to my own proclaimed standards don’t prove your claims meet them.” A:"What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

There is a difference. Imagine the following conversation between Mr. Italic and Mr. Bold
“the car works because there is a genie in it that makes it go.”
"No, it works because the internal combustion engine turns a crankshaft that turns an axle that turns the wheel."
*“Maybe, but the genie makes the internal combustion engine turn.”
***“Actually no, that’s the precisely-timed explosion of fuel and air.”
***“Well the genie puts the fuel in there.”
***“No, there’s a fuel pump that puts it in there.”
***“Well draw me the diagram of a fuel pump then!”
***“I’m not an automotive engineer, I haven’t learned how to do that yet.”
**“Then you admit there is a genie in the fuel pump! HA!”

Yes, there are gaps in my understanding of certain things, that doesn’t mean mysticism gets to be wedged in there. And if you do, you are doing God a disservice. Using the example above, if I later go out and open up a fuel pump and show that it works without a genie, then I have disproved the existence of the car genie.
Likewise, if you try and base God’s existence on the gaps of current human understanding, then you are setting up God to be rendered irrelevant if humans do fill up those gaps.

tonyrey:

I shall be enthralled if you can explain how particles have become persons…

From the bottom up, humanity understands how the atoms combine into molecules, which combine into cells, and we understand how those cells function in relation to each other on the small scale.
We also understand from the top down how the personality is dependant on the wiring of the brain. Anyone who doubts this should talk to Phineas Gage. Lobotomies, PET scans, and neurosurgery have shown that a person’s personality, dreams, and ability to make decisions have their roots in the material aspects of the brain.

If we could slice up the brain at will and not affect somebody’s personality or if chemicals injected into the brain didn’t alter a person’s sense of purpose or drive, then there might be an argument for the soul being completely unbound by physical matter.

But the gap between the understanding of the interactions of a few neural units and how they combine to create the emergent behaviors observed is an area that is not yet understood, but which seems to follow some rules. The fact that we don’t yet know all the rules yet doesn’t mean that God lives in that gap anymore than He lives in the areas we do understand.

 

[Hokomai]

There is a difference. Imagine the following conversation between Mr. Italic and Mr. Bold
“the car works because there is a genie in it that makes it go.”
"No, it works because the internal combustion engine turns a crankshaft that turns an axle that turns the wheel."
*“Maybe, but the genie makes the internal combustion engine turn.”
***“Actually no, that’s the precisely-timed explosion of fuel and air.”
***“Well the genie puts the fuel in there.”
***“No, there’s a fuel pump that puts it in there.”
***“Well draw me the diagram of a fuel pump then!”
***“I’m not an automotive engineer, I haven’t learned how to do that yet.”
**“Then you admit there is a genie in the fuel pump! HA!”

Yes, there are gaps in my understanding of certain things, that doesn’t mean mysticism gets to be wedged in there. And if you do, you are doing God a disservice. Using the example above, if I later go out and open up a fuel pump and show that it works without a genie, then I have disproved the existence of the car genie.
Likewise, if you try and base God’s existence on the gaps of current human understanding, then you are setting up God to be rendered irrelevant if humans do fill up those gaps.

From the bottom up, humanity understands how the atoms combine into molecules, which combine into cells, and we understand how those cells function in relation to each other on the small scale.
We also understand from the top down how the personality is dependant on the wiring of the brain. Anyone who doubts this should talk to Phineas Gage. Lobotomies, PET scans, and neurosurgery have shown that a person’s personality, dreams, and ability to make decisions have their roots in the material aspects of the brain.

If we could slice up the brain at will and not affect somebody’s personality or if chemicals injected into the brain didn’t alter a person’s sense of purpose or drive, then there might be an argument for the soul being completely unbound by physical matter.

But the gap between the understanding of the interactions of a few neural units and how they combine to create the emergent behaviors observed is an area that is not yet understood, but which seems to follow some rules. The fact that we don’t yet know all the rules yet doesn’t mean that God lives in that gap anymore than He lives in the areas we do understand.

This!:tiphat:

 

[LJH_80]

Thank you for you compliment, Hokomai.

Re-reading my post, the last sentence read differently than I intended, so I would like to give clarificaction.

… The fact that we don’t yet know all the rules yet doesn’t mean that God lives in that gap anymore than He lives in the areas we do understand.

I should have said “any more or any less.”
I believe God lies in the gap, but He also lies everywhere else. God lies in the way energy is packaged into atoms, the way those atoms make molecules, etcetera all the way up to the gap, including the gap, and beyond it to the entire universe and beyond. God is in everything, and that’s why I say shoving Him into the gaps of current scientific understanding is doing Him a disservice. It implies that he isn’t anywhere else.

 

[Hokomai]

Thank you for you compliment, Hokomai.

Re-reading my post, the last sentence read differently than I intended, so I would like to give clarificaction.

I should have said “any more or any less.”
I believe God lies in the gap, but He also lies everywhere else. God lies in the way energy is packaged into atoms, the way those atoms make molecules, etcetera all the way up to the gap, including the gap, and beyond it to the entire universe and beyond. God is in everything, and that’s why I say shoving Him into the gaps of current scientific understanding is doing Him a disservice. It implies that he isn’t anywhere else.

Yes, unbelievers like me are actually on weak ground if we assert (as many do) that the gradual erosion of the ‘god of the gaps’ in the face of scientific advance means that there is certainly no gods), or even, with Dawkins, that there is almost certainly no god(s). The best we can do is say, as I do, that I am not aware of things which require god(s) as an explanation. We unbelievers also need to acknowledge the social reality of god(s) and think about whether the God in which people like you believe is not also something we experience, but call by a different name (for example: wonder, or awe).

 

[LJH_80]

The best we can do is say, as I do, that I am not aware of things which require god(s) as an explanation.

I’m entirely with you on this boat.
If there were things that required miraculous intervention to explain, they would serve as demonstrable proof of God. And really, if He’s going to start throwing around miracles to prove His existence, I wouldn’t expect Him to do so in obscure areas like a small section of neuroscience.
Also, it’s a pretty crummy clockmaker who needs a miracle between the 12th and 13th cog because he wasn’t able to design a self-sufficient system.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

We also understand from the top down how the personality is dependant on the wiring of the brain. Anyone who doubts this should talk to Phineas Gage. Lobotomies, PET scans, and neurosurgery have shown that a person’s personality, dreams, and ability to make decisions have their roots in the material aspects of the brain.

Was that the railroad worker that had the metal rod shot through his pre-frontal lobe taking chunks of his pre-frontal lobe with it?

 

[LJH_80]

Yep.
Phineas Gage

 

[wheels10]

But the gap between the understanding of the interactions of a few neural units and how they combine to create the emergent behaviors observed is an area that is not yet understood, but which seems to follow some rules. The fact that we don’t yet know all the rules yet doesn’t mean that God lives in that gap anymore than He lives in the areas we do understand.

I get the impression that you believe that if man discovers a tiny bit of how God’s creation behaves and functions, that this discovery is the same as having the ability to create the same creation. One small detail is missing here. God is able to create out of nothing. Man can only create using the materials that God has provided for us.

Do you see this dependence?

 

[LJH_80]

I get the impression that you believe that if man discovers a tiny bit of how God’s creation behaves and functions, that this discovery is the same as having the ability to create the same creation. One small detail is missing here. God is able to create out of nothing. Man can only create using the materials that God has provided for us.

Do you see this dependence?

I think you think science thinks it can do more than I think it thinks it can. (that sentence was just fun to write).

Science already agrees with you. We (as a man of science, I include myself here) know we can’t create the properties we observe, we can simply arrange them in ways we consider advantageous.
Science can’t create gravity, or change the way air creates friction. It has modeled those things thoroughly and understands how they work (i.e. we are studying, piece by piece, how God made the universe), but nowhere in there is even the hint that we can create anything similar. We can use our understandings of these effects to create combinations that please us, like airplanes, but that is incredibly different.

 

[tonyrey]

From the bottom up, humanity understands how the atoms combine into molecules, which combine into cells, and we understand how those cells function in relation to each other on the small scale.

We don’t understand how the DNA information system originated.

We also understand from the top down how the personality is dependant on the wiring of the brain. Anyone who doubts this should talk to Phineas Gage. Lobotomies, PET scans, and neurosurgery have shown that a person’s personality, dreams, and ability to make decisions have their roots in the material aspects of the brain.

All we know is that Phineas Gage’s behaviour was affected by his accident. If all your decisions occur in your brain you are not responsible for any of your conclusions… So they may well be worthless!

 

[LJH_80]

We don’t understand how the DNA information system originated.

I’ll re-state this, simpler.
Imagine a series of gears, all of which move in understandable ways. You’re looking at this long string of logically working gears, but sometimes, there’s a tree or something between you and the gear, so you can’t see one of the gears in the chain. Do you put a genie in there, or do you assume that it’s probably another logically-working gear.
I do the latter.

All we know is that Phineas Gage’s behaviour was affected by his accident. If all your decisions occur in your brain you are not responsible for any of your conclusions… So they may well be worthless!

I disagree with this statement. Please support the assumption that we need decisions making processes outside of our brains in order to explain anything.

 

[wheels10]

I think you think science thinks it can do more than I think it thinks it can. (that sentence was just fun to write).

Science already agrees with you. We (as a man of science, I include myself here) know we can’t create the properties we observe, we can simply arrange them in ways we consider advantageous.
Science can’t create gravity, or change the way air creates friction. It has modeled those things thoroughly and understands how they work **(i.e. we are studying, piece by piece, how God made the universe), **but nowhere in there is even the hint that we can create anything similar. We can use our understandings of these effects to create combinations that please us, like airplanes, but that is incredibly different.

So you do believe in the existence of God?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ll re-state this, simpler.
Imagine a series of gears, all of which move in understandable ways. You’re looking at this long string of logically working gears, but sometimes, there’s a tree or something between you and the gear, so you can’t see one of the gears in the chain. Do you put a genie in there, or do you assume that it’s probably another logically-working gear.
I do the latter.

Your analogy collapses because gears are devised by intelligent beings…

Please support the assumption that we need decisions making processes outside of our brains in order to explain anything.

If all your decisions have physical causes they are not made by you but for you!**
**

 

[LJH_80]

So you do believe in the existence of God?

Yes, but I believe that God is a good enough craftsman that He doesn’t need to have magic in the system to make it self-perpetuating.

Putting it another way,
If we were simply solid clay walking around and talking, there would be no explanation besides magic as to why we are animated.
But God didn’t choose to make a system that depended on a constant influx of magic, He made a system where things appear to follow logical rules that are self-sufficient.
I think God is a brilliant enough craftsman that He doesn’t need to resort to magic to make His system work.

Saying “we need places where science can’t explain things for God to exist.” Is essentially saying “we can only prove God exists if he wasn’t a perfect craftsman, and made some mistakes.”
I refuse to prove the existence of a perfect Creator by looking for mistakes He made.