Why wont god heal amputees

[Darwin]

It offers no evidence, it offers opinions, philosophy and your run of the mill god of the gaps arguments.

This is exactly my point, this "faith" thing in a creator seems to distance people from being able to critically think and assess EVIDENCE that is CREDIBLE and beyond philosophy, wishful thinking and god of the gaps as evidence.

They are people who can prove the world is flat by putting their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and screaming real loud. Thats real science you know!

 

[mattskramer]

It offers no evidence, it offers opinions, philosophy and your run of the mill god of the gaps arguments.

This is exactly my point, this "faith" thing in a creator seems to distance people from being able to critically think and assess EVIDENCE that is CREDIBLE and beyond philosophy, wishful thinking and god of the gaps as evidence.

Okay. Well. Until science can answer all of my questions and fill in all of the gaps, I’m not closing anything out. I am not yet going to say that I believe that God exists. I am not yet going to say that God does not exist. I have my suspicions and I have my doubt.

 

[mattskramer]

They are people who can prove the world is flat by putting their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and screaming real loud. Thats real science you know!

Please don’t be so silly and insult my intelligence. It has been proven that the earth is round.

 

[Darwin]

Okay. Well. Until science can answer all of my questions and fill in all of the gaps, I’m not closing anything out. I am not yet going to say that I believe that God exists. I am not yet going to say that God does not exist. I have my suspicions and I have my doubt.

Like dawkins said in the link i gave a few posts back:

You could give Aristotle a tutorial. And you could thrill him to the core of his being. Aristotle was an encyclopedic polymath, an all time intellect. Yet not only can you know more than him about the world. You also can have a deeper understanding of how everything works. Such is the privilege of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson, Crick and their colleagues.

I'm not saying you're more intelligent than Aristotle, or wiser. For all I know, Aristotle's the cleverest person who ever lived. That's not the point. The point is only that science is cumulative, and we live later.

Aristotle had a lot to say about astronomy, biology and physics. But his views sound weirdly naive today. Not as soon as we move away from science, however. Aristotle could walk straight into a modern seminar on ethics, theology, political or moral philosophy, and contribute. But let him walk into a modern science class and he'd be a lost soul. Not because of the jargon, but because science advances, cumulatively.

Is it science or religion that has given us most answers the last 2,000 years? Actually I have a hard time thinking of ANYTHING religion has proven, really. Must be hundreds of examples for such a huge organization. More religious people than researchers, for sure!

 

[Larkinn]

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

Thats the logical fallacy he is trying to promote.

No, he is not trying to promote that. He has not claimed that God actually exists.

No there isnt, there is only god of the gaps arguments. Lets see the evidence you say exists and I BET YOU a million trillion dollars its just another god of the gaps.

Bible, eyewitness accounts, people who say they have seen/heard/been influenced by God. And what do you mean by god of the gaps?

Believing in fairy tales as real is certainly harmful and we have seen the EVIDENCE of that in a lack of education, violence, lack of critical thinking skills etc.

So you think Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are "harmful"? And please explain the "evidence" that we've seen of that in the things you've said.

By the way, some food for thought...Christians give more to charity in America per person than liberal secularists do.

So yes its quite GOOD to be NORMAL

Wrong. Good and Normal have nothing at all to do with each other. In Nazi Germany it was normal to have ties to the Nazis and either help the massacre along, or turn a blind eye towards it. Would you argue that was therefore good?

and apply critical thinking skills to proposed theories like god that are designed for people to base their lives on.

You are, I hope, aware that two people can use critical thinking skills on the same question and come up with different anwsers, yes?

 

[Ruby]

Okay. Well. Until science can answer all of my questions and fill in all of the gaps, I’m not closing anything out. I am not yet going to say that I believe that God exists. I am not yet going to say that God does not exist. I have my suspicions and I have my doubt.

I doubt science will ever FILL IN ALL THE GAPS, eek what a boring world that would become!

But if I am to believe somthing exists there needs to be some sort of compelling evidence and there is none for god, unicorns, pasta monsters, tooth fairies etc. I certainly am not willing to say because we dont have all the answers to all the questions that there is some sort of god concept. Thats nothing more than inserting a wish into a gap in our knowledge and has caused a myriad of problems as a result.

 

[Larkinn]

Show me how bacteria when being exposed to antibiotics do not evolve, by having a few aquiring the genes that make them immune to the antibiotic just by using the 1/10000 error rate of RNA polymerase when it transcribes their genes, which is one of the big driving forces behind evolution. That is a fact I believe in.

Read some philosophy. There is no reason to trust your eyes...why do you believe we aren't in some Matrix-style world?...etc, etc.

Then you can prove to me that Santa Claus very well might exist, as you say people who believe in Santa Claus (mainly children I believe) might very well be right.

When approaching any proposition one should believe it "very well might exist" just as one should believe it "very well might not exist".

Edit: PubMed is a tool we have been taught to use to find scientific reports, maybe you can use that to find your evidence and proof that will show me my understanding of where the human race came from etc is wrong? Here is one article on the subject you can start by disproving, perhaps Nature will publish you and you will get famous! Noble Prize with the nice cash reward?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=241164&blobtype=pdf

You know quite a bit about science, but not much about logic. Me arguing that you MAY be wrong is not me saying you ARE wrong. Further any failure on my part to disprove your statements does NOT mean they are correct.

Edit2: BTW, I do not think that people who believe differently than me are crazy. I do think that people who believe in crazy things are crazy though.

Ah well, that explains a whole lot.

There is a difference, you know. Hence the reference to elves, orcs, fairy tale beings in general etc etc... those are stories made up by man, using something called "imagination" and "fantasy".

And the difference between those things and God is that we know who made up most of those things (Tolkein) whereas God, we don't. You only think God was "made up by man" because you find it fantastical and it doesn't fit into your other beliefs. That is, itself, a belief without evidence which you seem to think others are "crazy" for believing.

I can make up infinite fantasy beings in my mind, if I was inclined to waste my time in that way, this does not make them all real though. Or do you mean that this is the case? If you do I would like to hear more about your take on how the world works.

You seem to delight in misrepresenting me. Nowhere have I said that God is real.

 

[Larkinn]

It offers no evidence, it offers opinions, philosophy and your run of the mill god of the gaps arguments.

You do know that science is based on philosophy and that the first "scientists" were philosopers, yes? The line between the two is not as distinct as you would like to think.

This is exactly my point, this "faith" thing in a creator seems to distance people from being able to critically think and assess EVIDENCE that is CREDIBLE and beyond philosophy, wishful thinking and god of the gaps as evidence.

Please tell us all then what makes evidence credible and what makes evidence non-credible.

 

[mattskramer]

I doubt science will ever FILL IN ALL THE GAPS, eek what a boring world that would become!

But if I am to believe somthing exists there needs to be some sort of compelling evidence and there is none for god, unicorns, pasta monsters, tooth fairies etc. I certainly am not willing to say because we dont have all the answers to all the questions that there is some sort of god concept. Thats nothing more than inserting a wish into a gap in our knowledge and has caused a myriad of problems as a result.

What do you say about those people who believed so strongly that they would risk death and be executed for professing their beliefs? I guess that each one was delusional. Though they are not proof that God exists, isn’t that a tiny bit of evidence?

How long has there been geology and paleontology? It seems as though by now, people would have found all of the “missing links” and short-necked giraffes. What do you say about the gaps? There are gaps. Some people just gloss over it and say that they might be explained some day. Believers in God have their explanation. It is a toss-up as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Darwin]

Bible, eyewitness accounts, people who say they have seen/heard/been influenced by God.

People say many things, this does not mean that what they say is true though. Like the name of the thread implies, it would be interesting to see some proof of God healing amputees. Or does he not have this power? A god that only influence people and show himself to people in a way that can never be proven sound more like a hallucination than a god.

So you think Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are "harmful"? And please explain the "evidence" that we've seen of that in the things you've said.

They could be if people started cults, like they have around "God" and "Jesus" and start to use imagined beings imagined commands as justification for their actions that affect others than themselves.

By the way, some food for thought...Christians give more to charity in America per person than liberal secularists do.

In my country we pay taxes and take care of eachother with the tax money, instead of slaughtering innocent people on the other side of the planet in places we have no business being in. Imagine that.

Wrong. Good and Normal have nothing at all to do with each other. In Nazi Germany it was normal to have ties to the Nazis and either help the massacre along, or turn a blind eye towards it. Would you argue that was therefore good?

Nazis were bad. Religious people are bad. It is normal to be religious in USA. This does certainly not make it a good thing.

You are, I hope, aware that two people can use critical thinking skills on the same question and come up with different anwsers, yes?

Do you mean critical thinking or creative imagination?

 

[Larkinn]

Like dawkins said in the link i gave a few posts back:

Aristotle was a genius, but many of his views seem "naive" today. Look at his views on women and his Nichomachean ethics and then say that those are compatible with todays beliefs...he wouldn't understand those either. He would have something to say about all of todays beliefs, but I don't think many people would find them compelling. There is a reason that there aren't very many Aristotelians around anymore.

Is it science or religion that has given us most answers the last 2,000 years? Actually I have a hard time thinking of ANYTHING religion has proven, really. Must be hundreds of examples for such a huge organization. More religious people than researchers, for sure!

And how many souls has religion saved? It is a bit foolish to compare two things and then say one is much better than the other based on the fact that one has a goal and has done much to reach that goal and the other, since it does not share that goal, has done very little to reach that goal.

 

[Ruby]

No, he is not trying to promote that. He has not claimed that God actually exists.

He did try to assert that logical fallacy. It dosent matter much though cause its not actually a logic I am going to entertain in any serious way.

Bible, eyewitness accounts, people who say they have seen/heard/been influenced by God. And what do you mean by god of the gaps?

Bible is not evidence, its a book people wrote. Eyewitness accounts sopposedly from ancient times that have been translated from ancient languages into a multitude of modern languages and changed numerous times *not to mention the superstitious nature or the fact that religion and superstition were used as a tool to control people*....considering the problems we have with more current eyewitness accounts I dont think the ancient ones can even BEGIN to count as evidence.

People who have some internal emotional feelings/experiences are NOT evidence that a GOD exists! We need proof or evidence of this external force and someones internal feelings dosent meet the criteria by a long shot.

We have people that hear VOICES and even think they are voices of god or a devil...they arent lying either. They REALLY do hear them, they have a mental illness and hopefull get meds for it so they can live a good life. Those voices are certainly not evidence of a god.

God of the gaps arguments is where we fill in "god" as the answer when we DONT KNOW the answer. If we cant figure something out in our world, we can just claim that god did, that god created it. This has been used to try to prove god exists and it falls flat because it dosent provide proof, it simply tries to fill a space that is an unknown.

So you think Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are "harmful"? And please explain the "evidence" that we've seen of that in the things you've said.

Santa and tooth fairy would be harmful if we didnt discard them as the fairy tales they are as we grow to adulthood.

Evidence of which things I say exactly? I try to answer each point, what have I missed or what do you want explained further?

By the way, some food for thought...Christians give more to charity in America per person than liberal secularists do.

How do you quanitify such a thing? Where is your evidence for this statement even? Do people always identify themselves as "secular liberal" when donating to charity? I have donated many times in my life to many causes but I have NEVER identified myself as a religion or an atheist etc to do so. I have even donated to various religious organizations charities when I feel they are doing good work....is my donation counted as a christian one? When christians donate to charitys that arent religious are they counted as "secular liberals?"

Wrong. Good and Normal have nothing at all to do with each other. In Nazi Germany it was normal to have ties to the Nazis and either help the massacre along, or turn a blind eye towards it. Would you argue that was therefore good?

You are just trying to play semmantics, I said it was normal to base what you believe exist based on EVIDENCE and that was a GOOD thing. You seem to want to broaden the statement into somthing different.

You are, I hope, aware that two people can use critical thinking skills on the same question and come up with different anwsers, yes?

Sure, but both would have an evidence BASIS for their views and wouldnt it base it on somthing that lacks evidence in total. There isnt ONE SHRED of evidence of a god or creator, no one using critical thinking skills would believe somthing exists when there isnt ONE SHRED of evidence to support the existance theory.

 

[Larkinn]

People say many things, this does not mean that what they say is true though. Like the name of the thread implies, it would be interesting to see some proof of God healing amputees. Or does he not have this power? A god that only influence people and show himself to people in a way that can never be proven sound more like a hallucination than a god.

Of course it doesn't mean that it is true. However it is what is termed "evidence". Please realize the difference between evidence and proof. They are NOT interchangable and the difference is very important in this discussion.

They could be if people started cults, like they have around "God" and "Jesus" and start to use imagined beings imagined commands as justification for their actions that affect others than themselves.

As opposed to the other moral systems which are based on reason? Moral systems are subjective and based on little except intuitions.

In my country we pay taxes and take care of eachother with the tax money, instead of slaughtering innocent people on the other side of the planet in places we have no business being in. Imagine that.

Congratulations. Unfortunately that success of your country has not removed the stupidity in you that is described as nationalism.

Nazis were bad. Religious people are bad. It is normal to be religious in USA. This does certainly not make it a good thing.

Religious people are bad? Based on what would you claim such a thing? By the way, I do hope you realize that this short set of assertions doesn't come near to producing any sort of coherent argument, much less a logical one.

Do you mean critical thinking or creative imagination?

You are severely uninformed if you think that critical thinking will always produce the same anwser.

 

[mattskramer]

Aristotle was a genius, but many of his views seem "naive" today. Look at his views on women and his Nichomachean ethics and then say that those are compatible with todays beliefs...he wouldn't understand those either. He would have something to say about all of todays beliefs, but I don't think many people would find them compelling. There is a reason that there aren't very many Aristotelians around anymore.



And how many souls has religion saved? It is a bit foolish to compare two things and then say one is much better than the other based on the fact that one has a goal and has done much to reach that goal and the other, since it does not share that goal, has done very little to reach that goal.

Belief in God might be a placebo but those people who have the placebo have do much good. Think of the charities that believers have been involved in and donations that they have given. I don’t have proof but I think that, all things considered, those who believe that God exists have done more good than bad for the world. I know that that does not prove that God exists.

 

[Darwin]

Aristotle was a genius, but many of his views seem "naive" today. Look at his views on women and his Nichomachean ethics and then say that those are compatible with todays beliefs...he wouldn't understand those either. He would have something to say about all of todays beliefs, but I don't think many people would find them compelling. There is a reason that there aren't very many Aristotelians around anymore.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Like the quote said, Aristotele was quite outdated in many ways, especially science. He also said he could still have sat in on religious discussions today as religion has not advanced at all since the days of when a bunch of guys sat down and made the bible up. Except the most obvious mistakes so thoroughly proven to be crap by science they have had to revise their views. Like calling Galileo Galilei a heretic for daring to claim that our planet is revolving around the Sun.

And how many souls has religion saved? It is a bit foolish to compare two things and then say one is much better than the other based on the fact that one has a goal and has done much to reach that goal and the other, since it does not share that goal, has done very little to reach that goal.

My point was mostly that The Bible and all other religious text of the major and most minor religions, except the Spaghetti monster etc, are very very old and written by people who were very very clueless. Not because they were stupid, but they were very very primitive. Religion does not produce anything useful beyond some spiritual medication for people who need it as a crutch to get through their lives, or for people who are just plain lazy I guess and do not want to educate themselves (which is bad).

I'm ok with people being religious as long as they keep it private and never try to influence laws or other people based on their insanity which is best kept private.

My problem is with religious people who refuse to accept that science DO have important answers regarding how we are screwing up the planet for ourselves, and even more so for the coming generations of mankind and all the other wonderful and amazing life forms we are exterminating with our stupidity and lack of education.

One solution would of course be to remove the right of religious people to vote, but I think it is better to fight religion with education than fascism.

 

[Ruby]

What do you say about those people who believed so strongly that they would risk death and be executed for professing their beliefs? I guess that each one was delusional. Though they are not proof that God exists, isn’t that a tiny bit of evidence?

How long has there been geology and paleontology? It seems as though by now, people would have found all of the “missing links” and short-necked giraffes. What do you say about the gaps? There are gaps. Some people just gloss over it and say that they might be explained some day. Believers in God have their explanation. It is a toss-up as far as I’m concerned.

People having fervent belief is not evidence of a god, not even a tiny bit. It means they have been brainwashed and want to believe it and its a shame really cause you point to one of the most dangerous things in religion. People who think there is some heaven and immortality beyond this life are also ready to toss it away carelessly and wont value the only real life we do have. People can be convinced of many things, but that dosent make those things valid or real.

I guess you are going with god of the gaps now? LOL!

No I am not a bit surprised that science hasnt filled in all the gaps....I think its quite possible that in 1000 years they STILL wont have filled in all the gaps.

But let me ask YOU a question on that same line of reasoning. Dont you think that by now all those religious people would have been able to come up with at least ONE peice of solid evidence of gods existance? You seem ok with that but want science to have ALL the answers by now?

You also highlight another problem, religion claims to have ALL the answers which means there is no reason to move FORWARD or search for the REAL answers. It encourages us to NOT think further or develop further and keep us stuck in ancient cultures and ancient science. Religion dosent actually OFFER any real ANSWERS, it offers fake answers that arent based in reality or based upon evidence. According to the bible the earth is pretty young and we KNOW that isnt true...those are the kinds of false answers the bible and religion provides. Its called bad info and mis-education....you honestly want to support somthing like that?

 

[Ruby]

You do know that science is based on philosophy and that the first "scientists" were philosopers, yes? The line between the two is not as distinct as you would like to think.



Please tell us all then what makes evidence credible and what makes evidence non-credible.

Evidence can be observed by third parties freely and would not depend on your internal experience or interpertation.

 

[Darwin]

Belief in God might be a placebo but those people who have the placebo have do much good. Think of the charities that believers have been involved in and donations that they have given. I don’t have proof but I think that, all things considered, those who believe that God exists have done more good than bad for the world. I know that that does not prove that God exists.

In Sweden we use tax money to help the most unfortunate of our society get what they need to survive. Free and advanced health care for all citizens is another solution. See how much better socialism is than religion?

 

[Larkinn]

He did try to assert that logical fallacy. It dosent matter much though cause its not actually a logic I am going to entertain in any serious way.

No, he didnt.

Bible is not evidence, its a book people wrote.

A book about what they saw and believed to be true. The claim that "books" are not evidence would draw ire from a great many historians who base their entire field on the presupposition that books are in fact evidence.

Eyewitness accounts sopposedly from ancient times that have been translated from ancient languages into a multitude of modern languages and changed numerous times

So is your claim then that the original texts said that God did not exist? Or that they said something other than that God existed?

*not to mention the superstitious nature or the fact that religion and superstition were used as a tool to control people*....considering the problems we have with more current eyewitness accounts I dont think the ancient ones can even BEGIN to count as evidence.

Ah so the people of old were supersticious and stupid, eh? And on what "evidence" do you base this claim? Perhaps books and eyewitness accounts of the people of old?...hmm seems a bit contradictory.

People who have some internal emotional feelings/experiences are NOT evidence that a GOD exists! We need proof or evidence of this external force and someones internal feelings dosent meet the criteria by a long shot.

External things produce internal feelings. If you want to always disregard internal feelings, than you should not believe anything except when you are being directly, at that moment, influenced by it. Why believe in coffee? There is none right in front of you, and so all you have is an internal feeling that it exists.

We have people that hear VOICES and even think they are voices of god or a devil...they arent lying either. They REALLY do hear them, they have a mental illness and hopefull get meds for it so they can live a good life. Those voices are certainly not evidence of a god.

And you know they have a mental illness because...why exactly? Ah yes, you've already decided and so anyone who has evidence and experiences that contradict those decisions must be "mentally ill".

God of the gaps arguments is where we fill in "god" as the answer when we DONT KNOW the answer. If we cant figure something out in our world, we can just claim that god did, that god created it. This has been used to try to prove god exists and it falls flat because it dosent provide proof, it simply tries to fill a space that is an unknown.

There are other arguments for God besides that, and I have never put forward that theory.

Santa and tooth fairy would be harmful if we didnt discard them as the fairy tales they are as we grow to adulthood.

In what way?

How do you quanitify such a thing? Where is your evidence for this statement even? Do people always identify themselves as "secular liberal" when donating to charity? I have donated many times in my life to many causes but I have NEVER identified myself as a religion or an atheist etc to do so. I have even donated to various religious organizations charities when I feel they are doing good work....is my donation counted as a christian one? When christians donate to charitys that arent religious are they counted as "secular liberals?"

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/statistics.html

You are just trying to play semmantics, I said it was normal to base what you believe exist based on EVIDENCE and that was a GOOD thing. You seem to want to broaden the statement into somthing different.

Thats not what you said. But regardless, it is NOT normal to base what you believe on evidence under your own definition...considering only a small minority of the world is atheist.

Sure, but both would have an evidence BASIS for their views and wouldnt it base it on somthing that lacks evidence in total.

Re-write this please if you want me to respond to it.

There isnt ONE SHRED of evidence of a god or creator, no one using critical thinking skills would believe somthing exists when there isnt ONE SHRED of evidence to support the existance theory.

I've already addressed this. There IS evidence. You seem to want to discount it, but you cannot argue that the evidence does not exist.

 

[Gunny]

Ah I'm sorry...I guess when you say something stupid, realize it, then it was just a joke, eh?

Well I do find that fairly amusing.

No, when I intend something to be humor, I don't expect the gaggle of humorless sticks in the mud to try and present it as anything else.