Old Question -- Any New Answers?

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?

For the same reason that God does not heal anyone with leprosy. Or Alzheimer’s disease. Or Parkinson’s disease…

Which is?

So sorry… you have to answer that for yourself. The so called “problem of evil” is the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity. No one has ever presented a viable argument, and never will. All the attempted responses are weak, dumb, pitiful cop-outs. Here is a collection of them: enjoy…

The same question has been asked on another thread: Creationism and life in general.

The answer? Coercive miracles would defeat the purpose of giving us free will.

You’re too dogmatic. Have you examined all of them? :rolleyes:

All of those which have been presented on this site. (Including yours: “Coercive miracles would defeat the purpose of giving us free will.” - which is ridiculous.

You have failed - to explain why!

You may wish to economise but the font you use is unnecessarily minute…

Well, no, I did not. The reason is that it has been explained (to you!) zillions of times before and I was hoping that you comprehended the explanation. But since you still do not understand it, I will explain again. (And I use a different font this time.)

Suppose that by some ways and means you could PROVE to me that God exists, and this God is EXACTLY as you believers describe him. (I know you say that this God is benevolent, loving, caring, etc… but the world around us belies these assertions.) Anyhow, I would not be deprived of my freedom to find this God unworthy of worship. If I met this God face-to-face, I would give him a piece of my mind, and if he would punish me for that, it would simply reinforce what I would say to him.

So, miracles or anything else would have absolutely no negative impact on my freedom at all. I don’t think you understand this, but I am an incurable optimist, so I gave it one more try.

Thank you! I’m doing likewise to show there are no hard feelings. :slight_smile:

Suppose that by some ways and means you could PROVE to me that God exists, and this God is EXACTLY as you believers describe him. (I know you say that this God is benevolent, loving, caring, etc… but the world around us belies these assertions.)

Suppose you could PROVE to me that the world explains itself and life is not worth living…

Anyhow, I would not be deprived of my freedom to find this God unworthy of worship. If I met this God face-to-face, I would give him a piece of my mind, and if he would punish me for that, it would simply reinforce what I would say to him.

You haven’t explained how your freedom originated. I’m quite sure you would change your mind if you came face to face with your Creator… :wink:

So, miracles or anything else would have absolutely no negative impact on my freedom at all. I don’t think you understand this, but I am an incurable optimist, so I gave it one more try.

If you’re absolutely convinced and nothing would change your mind you’re not free but obsessed! :eek:

Actually, the miracle attributed to the beatification of Pope John Paul II was for a woman cured of Parkinson’s Disease.

guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/31/catholicism.france

I think that the God who created the universe can certainly do the easier thing of healing amputees, but the healings won’t come by mankind’s tempting God for a miracle. When God makes the decision to heal an amputee(s), such as the time Jesus put Malchus’ ear back on, the healing will be at a specific time (God’s own time) and for a specific purpose. And if the healing doesn’t take place on planet earth, then it will most definitely take place in Heaven.

Such an old trick. I asked you first. You try to cover up the lack of your ability to answer by positing some irrelevant new questions. Shame, shame… :tsktsk:

Irrelevant again.

My door is open. God can show up any time. He will have his earful.

Not an answer. Obviously a direct brainwashing would have an impact on my freedom. But some measly miracles would not do the trick. And that was your positive claim: “A miracle would deprive us of our freedom”. Obviously it would not. The solution is simple: Next time don’t make such sweeping and ridiculous claims.

If you cannot give an alternative explanation your objection is in a vacuum!

[quote]You haven’t explained how your freedom originated.

Irrelevant again.
[/quote]

Only in your opinion!

[quote]I’m quite sure you would change your mind if you came face to face with

your Creator…
My door is open. God can show up any time. He will have his earful.
[/quote]

Your sole purpose in coming to this forum is to abuse…

[quote]If you’re absolutely convinced and nothing would change your mind you’re not free but obsessed!

Not an answer. Obviously a direct brainwashing would have an impact on my freedom. But some measly miracles would not do the trick. And that was your positive claim: “A miracle would deprive us of our freedom”. Obviously it would not. The solution is simple: Next time don’t make such sweeping and ridiculous claims.

[/quote]

I shan’t waste any more time and energy… :shrug:

SSDD!

One can only hope that you will keep your word.

How about this: If the problem of evil is so strong, present me with a logical deductible form of it. Non-Theists are always going on and on about how it “kills” Christianity, but really all they have are arguments from outrage. Emotional problems, which are useless outside a rhetoric-centered environment. Can you formulate a logical deductible form of the problem of evil? Then we’ll talk.

Being an amputee could lead to a greater good. Alternatively, healing the amputee could lead to a larger evil. They could have their arm back, but virtually no muscular development nor nerve control. There are a lot of things that can go wrong, and this is where the free will defense really kicks in. You never know what impact it will have which could violate free will, even if the healing itself doesn’t.

Well put!

Congratulations on reaching your 1000th post. :clapping:

Thank you!

The “emotional” aspect is not relevant.

The deductive type of an argument presupposes that we can agree on a set of starting points (as axioms) and base the logical argument on them. (Without axioms there can be no deduction, I am sure you are aware of that.)

And here is the first stumbling block. Can we agree on the definition of such a simple concept as “benevolent”? In my vocabulary the word “benevolent” is very well defined. It designates a person who cares about others, who helps others, who is not aloof about other people’s pain, health, hunger etc. That person does not “outsource” the helping to others, but performs the help himself (as long as he is able to do it). No excuse that right now there is no help, but “later” there will be some reward.

Now, it may happen that this person “stays his hand”, and does not perform the expected help, but in that case he (or his advocate) must explain very clearly and sufficiently why the route of “non-help” was preferable. Not just mumbling that “maybe” there is a very good reason, why the help was withheld, but we are unable to know that reason. That is not an argument (in everyday vernacular it is called BS-ing), and I want to make sure that you are aware of this, before we even start (if we ever get there).

Can we agree that this is the bare minimum for the definition of “benevolent”? If we cannot, there is no common ground, and we shall talk past each other. Can we agree that there is BS-ing in the form of “maybe”?

I am not hopeful. When a conversation like this ends, and the believer runs out of arguments, he/she will invariably say: “How dare you to question God? Whatever God does to you is just, right, moral and fine, because God is the Creator. The (absolute) moral rules do not apply to God, since he is the rule-maker.”

So, my friend, I will decline your challenge, UNLESS we can agree on the starting points and the rules of the conversation. If we can, then I will be happy to engage in a friendly dialog with you. The ball is in your court. As I said I am not hopeful. So far it never happened that the prospective opponent would have agreed to these terms. Not that these terms are unfair to either party. But for whatever reason they do not want to agree. Beats me, why?

A perfect example of an unacceptable baloney. You must spell out exactly and precisely why is not rendering help is preferable to the help. “Maybe” simply does not cut it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.