Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

Quotes

(Apologies if this is old news).

I ran accross this web site/online book today: Why Won't God Heal Amputees? http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/.

I won't pretend to have read the entire online book (yet); however I did read Chapter 5 (which shares the same title as the entire book).

An interesting application of "common sense" approach to the question of Supreme Being.

Now... commence the cat fight between the believers that have pretented to read the above but really havn't, vs. the non-believers that will be saying "big deal, this isn't as impressive as The Rejection of Pascal's Wager. (Personally, "I wager 200 Quatloos on the newcomers").

~Q

MsMcDucket

I'm going to have to scan a picture of my husband, so that you can see it. His entire leg and half of his pelvis was amputated due to cancer. People will ask him "How come you don't wear a prothesis?". They don't have a clue. I don't know what the book is about, but I assume it's along the lines of "Why me?".

It would be wonderful if human nerves could regenerate and if we could regrow limbs like a starfish. Maybe we haven't evolved enough...

I just saw your thread and had to respond. I don't even know what the book is about.

Quotes

The online book (or at least, chapter 5 which I have read, and I think is the crux of the argument) is about whether or not God exists.

Essentially, and at the risk of way over simplifying a well reasoned argument:

Some people claim that, say, their remission of cancer (for example), and even disappearance of tumor, was due to god answering their prayer and performing a miracle. Now, some non-believers would rationally argue that frequently this happens, and no supernatural or godly explanation is required. Perhaps your body's immune system finally did its job; perhaps the chemo or radiation did their job, whatever. But to the believer, there is only one possibiliy: God cured my cancer. So we are left in a quandry due to equivocation: maybe it was natural, maybe is was God/supernatural.

On the other hand, god never, ever, EVER seems to cure amputees. You NEVER hear of an amputee spontaneously growing their limb back. It never happens. *IF* it did happen, it would be an OBVIOUS miracle, since there is no natural explanation. The hard science says, simply, amputated human limbs do not grow back.

So here is a great opportunity for god/supreme being/Flying Spaghetti Monster to really demonstrate a TRUE, UNEQUIVOCAL miracle, one that can't be written off by the non-believers as simply "a rare but naturalistic phenomena".

There are many possible conclusions; one would be that the Supreme Being, who is obviously capable of healing amputees, chooses not to -- maybe he has something against them? Or maybe God only works in situations were there is the possibility of confusion

But the more likely, more logical, more obvious, simpler conclusion is this: the supposed miracles were not miracles at all. Rather, naturalistic explanations clearly account for all those supposed "miracle" healings. The fact that amputees never get healed is proof.

~Q

tall penguin

I read the article. Interesting reasoning. Yes, "miracle healing" seems to be quite selective. At least the jw's didn't believe in it. Yet the belief in "Jehovah's will" as the explanation for all things good was about the same in the end.
Thanks Quotes for sharing.
tall penguin

kid-A

So here is a great opportunity for god/supreme being/Flying Spaghetti Monster to really demonstrate a TRUE, UNEQUIVOCAL miracle,

Yes, but at least MY GOD, the flying spaghetti monster (peace be upon him) is DELICIOUS, especially in his "linguine" transmogrification! their god is just an ass.....LOL

Excellent point though, the lack of any real, tangible "miracle healings" certainly testifies to the absurdity of ascribing "healing" to supernatural hocus pocus.

Double Edge

The fact that amputees never get healed is proof.

Seems as if it is ONLY proof that God didn't restore their limb, not in the existence of miracles.

Rather, naturalistic explanations clearly account for all those supposed "miracle" healings.

Rather a very broad conclusion. Those times when science/medicine can not explain at all the complete absense of a of a previously diagnosed terminal cancer would be categorized as what?

RunningMan

Well, I have to say that I never thought of that before. I guess regrowing a limb is just a little too tough for the almighty.

And, as for linguini, it is a false God. Only spaghetti in its pure form is worthy of worship, for is it not written (on the back of the box) that "Satan transforms himself into an angel of pasta, to mislead the chewing ones?"

MsMcDucket

Rather a very broad conclusion. Those times when science/medicine can not explain at all the complete absense of a of a previously diagnosed terminal cancer would be categorized as what?

Categorized as the doctor couldn't read x-rays or MRI or CT scans.

kid-A

And, as for linguini, it is a false God. Only spaghetti in its pure form is worthy of worship, for is it not written (on the back of the box) that "Satan transforms himself into an angel of pasta, to mislead the chewing ones?"

You dare question the omnipotence of his noodly holiness? For is it not written, "I am the Linguini and Gnocchi, before me there were no other gods"? Do you not recall the parable of spaghetti monsters resurrection, when he appeared in an 'alfredo white sauce' and Thomas doubted his true identity? For at that moment, Thomas rolled his linguine onto his fork, and tasting our lords cheesy deliciousness declared "for thou are truly our lord and pasta, risen up from the dead" ?????

RunningMan

I should have known you were a Gnocctic - one of the first apostate groups. Heretic. My God shall boil you in lightly salted water for all eternity, followed by a sound blanching, to prevent stickiness.

Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

Share this