http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32191966/?GT1=43001
Summary of the story: 11 year old dies from undiagnosed diabetes because her family believed that the healing power of prayer would cure her. She believes that sickness is caused by sin and can be cured by God. she didn't believe her daughters lifelessness was something serious that she wouldn't come out of by praying more.
Seriously? what sin would an 11 year old commit that would cause diabetes? Too much tv?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Amputee Prayers
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
The question is simple, why doesn't God answer the prayers of amputees? The website leads to many well articulated criticisms of the power of prayer and the existence of God. But it pretty much boils down to this:
People believe that the power of prayer to heal wounds is real. The bible also makes claims in many different places [sited on the website] that a sincere prayer from someone that truly believes will lead to it being answered.
There must've been at least one sincere amputee who truly believes in God that has asked for a limb to be restored.
There has never been a case that a limb has been restored.
Either God has an odd divine plan for amputees that hasn't been revealed or god does not exist.
The question is simple, why doesn't God answer the prayers of amputees? The website leads to many well articulated criticisms of the power of prayer and the existence of God. But it pretty much boils down to this:
People believe that the power of prayer to heal wounds is real. The bible also makes claims in many different places [sited on the website] that a sincere prayer from someone that truly believes will lead to it being answered.
There must've been at least one sincere amputee who truly believes in God that has asked for a limb to be restored.
There has never been a case that a limb has been restored.
Either God has an odd divine plan for amputees that hasn't been revealed or god does not exist.
Counterfactuals
Some of the arguments that I will be using are written in the form of a counterfactual. This is pretty much just saying that I will be using "what if" or "were it the case that" in front of the assumptions in an argument. most of them will be "were it the case that god were real, then this is what follows."
Many of the arguments have been thoroughly covered by many theologians and religious scholars. They may even have many different solutions that the religious community will accept. I understand that as I write them. The reason I still write them out is to demonstrate that even if there are several solutions to an argument, the solutions will tend to not agree with each other. Some will answer that God can do anything, or that there is a limit and that's fine. This demonstrates to the observer that the people that are providing the solutions are creating solutions to the issue at hand without any actual facts or knowledge to support the claims in their solutions. They are just attempting to weasel out of the contradiction in a superficial manner. If two theologians/religious scholars can come to two distinct and mutually exclusive conclusions about their deity and the supernatural realm, then is there any actual knowledge or method of obtaining supernatural knowledge that they are using that they can back up their claims with?
This shows that they possess no actual knowledge whatsoever about any actual limitations, abilities, or even any characteristic of the deity they believe in. Whatever claim they have about the true state of their deity will change to suit the contradictions and arguments given at that time period. Given that they can't obtain any facts about their deity, anytime they claim that their deity has a certain property they are just fabricating the details.
I hope that the counterfactuals i have written out illustrate this point. If there was a true solution to any of the problems, then it would have to be uniform. It could not vary, for a perfect deity cannot vary. Or can it?
Many of the arguments have been thoroughly covered by many theologians and religious scholars. They may even have many different solutions that the religious community will accept. I understand that as I write them. The reason I still write them out is to demonstrate that even if there are several solutions to an argument, the solutions will tend to not agree with each other. Some will answer that God can do anything, or that there is a limit and that's fine. This demonstrates to the observer that the people that are providing the solutions are creating solutions to the issue at hand without any actual facts or knowledge to support the claims in their solutions. They are just attempting to weasel out of the contradiction in a superficial manner. If two theologians/religious scholars can come to two distinct and mutually exclusive conclusions about their deity and the supernatural realm, then is there any actual knowledge or method of obtaining supernatural knowledge that they are using that they can back up their claims with?
This shows that they possess no actual knowledge whatsoever about any actual limitations, abilities, or even any characteristic of the deity they believe in. Whatever claim they have about the true state of their deity will change to suit the contradictions and arguments given at that time period. Given that they can't obtain any facts about their deity, anytime they claim that their deity has a certain property they are just fabricating the details.
I hope that the counterfactuals i have written out illustrate this point. If there was a true solution to any of the problems, then it would have to be uniform. It could not vary, for a perfect deity cannot vary. Or can it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
